Gun Control: The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed From Time To Time With The Blood Of Children And Innocents

[Fragile Bird]

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

LOL, funny how you're conflating cultural diversity with racial diversity - or even more specifically what I said in terms of people looking different.  Here's Canada's ethnic group breakdown:

Tons of diversity there huh?  Those English and French sure look different!

First of all, that's one link posted twice.  Second, its first paragraph demonstrates my point:

That's certainly very rich cultural and even ethnic diversity, but the vast majority of those groups don't look different than each other.

I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the saying lies, damn lies and statistics.

The statistics linked by James and quoted by you are not exactly the right ones to look at. You were looking at the ethnic composition of the white population (and yes, the French are important because the two founding populations of Canada, the English and the French) and I could throw the same numbers at you for the US white population.

The US and Canada count people different ways.

The US statistics, counted by census, break down as follows: White, 72.4%, Black, 12.6%, Asian, 4.8%, Native American and Alaskan, 0.9%, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islands, 0.2%, Two or more races, 2.9%, Some other race, 6.2%.

Using the same methodology, the numbers for Canada are: Not a Visible Minority, 77.7%, composed of White 72.9% + Aboriginals, 4.9%, and Visible Minorities, 22.2%.

The Visible Minority break down for Canada is: South Asian, 5.6%, Chinese, 5.1%, other Asians, 2.5%, Black, 3.5%, Filipino, 2.3%, Latin American, 1.3 %, plus in US terms of diversity, Aboriginal Canadians, 4.9%. We have a much bigger native population than the US has, percentage wise. The white populations are virtually identical, but the non-white/visible minority population is much more diverse in Canada, since your black population is so big.

Canada has the highest foreign-born population in the world, at 20%, well above the US, at 12.9%. Since 2000, 60% of our immigrants have come from Asia, only 13.7% from Europe.

And while Trump likes to say the US takes in more immigrants than any other country, percentage wise Canada takes in way more immigrants (and way more refugees). The US averages 1 million a year, but 600,000 a year for more than a decade have been change of status immigrants, people already in the US, not new arrivals. Canada, 1/10th the size of the US, has taken in a steady 225,000 a year for several decades. The US would have to take in 2.25 M a year.

I make no comments about any other arguments you guys are making, 

[DMC]

55 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

You were looking at the ethnic composition of the white population (and yes, the French are important because the two founding populations of Canada, the English and the French) and I could throw the same numbers at you for the US white population.

No, I wasn't.  I used the CIA World Factbook because that link specifically is a quick and easy way to compare the largest ethnic minorities between countries, but it is not an ethnic composition of only the white population.  This should be obvious considering Chinese is on there.  The Factbook's numbers lineup similar to Canada's census breakdown, although it looks like it should be updated and they clearly had about a 4% cutoff on that page in which groups with lesser percentage were placed in the "other" aggregate.

Anyway, it's of course true Canada has a large immigrant population.  My point is even taking into account that recent growth which contributes to 19.1% "visible minorities", just the two main racial minorities in the US (Hispanic about 18%, Black about 12%) are still 50 percent larger, meaning more people who look different.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Not sure what you mean here, I don't think acknowledging minorities have good reason to be scared of white people - even before Trump - is projecting.

No, I’m saying the opposite. I believe white people are projecting their fears, which I find to be irrational.

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

No, I wasn't.  I used the CIA World Factbook because that link specifically is a quick and easy way to compare the largest ethnic minorities between countries, but it is not an ethnic composition of only the white population.  This should be obvious considering Chinese is on there.  The Factbook's numbers lineup similar to Canada's census breakdown, although it looks like it should be updated and they clearly had about a 4% cutoff on that page in which groups with lesser percentage were placed in the "other" aggregate.

Anyway, it's of course true Canada has a large immigrant population.  My point is even taking into account that recent growth which contributes to 19.1% "visible minorities", just the two main racial minorities in the US (Hispanic about 18%, Black about 12%) are still 50 percent larger, meaning more people who look different.

The numbers I quoted are from the US census, which is what that CIA link quotes for the US entry. The CIA for some reason did not use Canadian census numbers, choosing to use the ethnic breakdown instead. Why don’t they use the ethnic breakdown for the US numbers? Perhaps for political reasons? The great melting pot? There isn’t even a category fir Latin Americans in the US census - Hispanics identify themselves as white or as black or perhaps in that 6% category of ‘Some other race’.

Are you suggesting they shouldn’t identify themselves as White? They don’t look white enough for you, even if they identify as white? “People who look different”?

[King Ned Stark]

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

Such a sad, sad post to read.

I lived alone in an apartment while at law school, and it never, ever crossed my mind that I needed a gun to protect myself, even alone hundreds of kilometers away from home in a higher crime city. I live alone now, in a higher crime neighbourhood (and my insurance rates reflect that fact) but no, I don't need a gun to protect myself.

I feel sorry for you people.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

Well, while you're asking, yes I'd like to see the police significantly less armed than they are now, or at least less likely (by training) to use lethal force.  Right now all they need to do is say they were scared and they can shoot anyone with zero professional consequences.  

I don't think we need to restrict military arms. It's not like there are scores of angry young soldiers shooting up schools with their service weapons.  Although on the whole, I think the defense budget is bloated beyond justification.   

As far as women being concerned with their self-defense, that's a legitimate concern.  All case law aside, I think that restricting all firearm magazines to 6 or 5+1 for civilians makes sense.  Handgun or long gun.  There isn't a legitimate use of a firearm that requires more than that.  I'd also like to see, nationally, a strict licensing process, universal background checks with a longer waiting period (I think 30 days is reasonable), and yes, a strict registry system where if a gun you bought is used in a crime and you didn't report it stolen, you're on the hook.

I wouldn't expect this to stop school shootings, but it will make them less devastating.  I doubt the Vegas killer could have done so much damage reloading every 5 shots.  

It'd be a good-faith gesture on the part of law abiding gun owners that they support reasonable checks on super-easy violence.  Remember that the Vegas guy was a law abiding, responsible gun owner until he started killing people.  

And honestly, as someone who's owned guns in the past and is also a longtime marijuana smoker, fuck you crybaby gun enthusiasts.  I've been arrested and ticketed for bothering no one smoking my own and locally grown weed.  I don't buy cartel shit.  And for older weed smokers, they had it even worse.  There are people in this country in jail for possessing weed, and the pro-gun crowd is whining about having to take a fucking class or get a license or register your fucking gun.  Zero sympathy.  Seriously the gun snowflakes can all go pound lead splattered sand at the range.

 

 

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

yes absolutely 

[Week]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

I assume their very rational fear is the increased likelihood to be a victim of gun violence due the gun they own in their home. (Gun access in home lead to increased accidents, suicide, etc.)

That fear is real -- it's irrational to clutch danger closer to yourself as a result of xenophobic fears.

eta- Those who own firearms out of fear could carry mace, pepper spray, taser, or other non-lethal instruments of self-defense. They would be far less likely to grievously hurt themselves or others with their own weapon.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The numbers I quoted are from the US census, which is what that CIA link quotes for the US entry. The CIA for some reason did not use Canadian census numbers, choosing to use the ethnic breakdown instead. Why don’t they use the ethnic breakdown for the US numbers? Perhaps for political reasons? The great melting pot? There isn’t even a category fir Latin Americans in the US census - Hispanics identify themselves as white or as black or perhaps in that 6% category of ‘Some other race’.

OMG, if you were not interested in making any comments on the actual arguments, why are you so interested in pressing such a pedantic issue?  And even then, you're wrong.  The Factbook is using Canada's census numbers, it's just - like I said - they need to be updated.  Their percentages are from the 2011 census, as indicated by the "(2011 est.)" at the end of the Canada entry in the original link.  Why is the US entry different?  Probably because they're using the way the US Census Bureau breaks down "race," as the bureau doesn't have detailed data on ethnic groups like Canada does.  It's clear the Factbook's primary source is a country's own census, but you're right, it's probably a vast conspiracy.  And CIA is somehow doing it for political reasons to promote the great melting pot, yet is shockingly stupid about it by not including their largest racial/ethnic minority.  And I'm very well aware the Factbook doesn't have a category for Hispanic/Latinos.  Who gives a shit?  It doesn't change the fact everybody knows Hispanics are the largest racial minority and looking up data on their percentage takes two seconds.  That's why the bureau does include a "Hispanic or Latino" category, as well as a "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino" category.

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Are you suggesting they shouldn’t identify themselves as White? They don’t look white enough for you, even if they identify as white? “People who look different”?

No, I'm suggesting they've been oppressed and feared by white people because they look different.

[Seli]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

Fears might be real, any sense that a gun will bring safety is irrational even if it feels safer. No guns need to be banned, looking at how gun control works around the world, it just makes a lot of sense to restrict access to all semi-automatic weapons and hand-guns to people that can show need and capability.

Police and military ought to be restricted as well, as they generally are, to people who are trained and deemed capable.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?

Probably. Most people are far more afraid of terrorist attacks or home invasion than they are, say, of getting injured in a car, despite the absurd evidence that the latter happens far more than the former. The NRA's entire TV series is essentially telling everyone how afraid they should be about everything, despite the overwhelming majority of the country seeing less crime overall. 

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

 What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

In a perfect world I would ban all semiautomatic weapons save revolvers from civilian use. You can get a license for semiautos similar to other countries and how they require it. I would also require semiautos when not in use to be stored at a local armory that is run by civilians, and require everyone to train regularly so that they can use it properly and in effective situations. 

[King Ned Stark]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Such a sad, sad post to read.

I lived alone in an apartment while at law school, and it never, ever crossed my mind that I needed a gun to protect myself, even alone hundreds of kilometers away from home in a higher crime city. I live alone now, in a higher crime neighbourhood (and my insurance rates reflect that fact) but no, I don't need a gun to protect myself.

I feel sorry for you people.

No need to feel sorry for me, as I don’t live in fear.  Others posters had remarked that fear might be a reason for owning guns.  I just googled it and found it seemed to be an overwhelming reason for women buying firearms; which I thought was reasonable.

I guess if I was asked I would list home protection as one reason, but just one among several.  I’m a member at a range, I shoot in competitions, my first two guns were given to me by my grandfather and father.  My guns are kept unloaded and in a safe.  I take them to the range in cases, load and shoot them, then take them home and lock them up.  I clean and maintain them, I teach my wife and kids proper gun safety.

 

Edit to add.  I’m not saying I’m against any and all gun regulations; however I will admit to a healthy skepticism of the government; whether it be Trump and the right or Obama and the left. I enjoy reading about the founding fathers, and one of their lessons seem to be that the natural course of government is to grow more tyrannical.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

OMG, if you were not interested in making any comments on the actual arguments, why are you so interested in pressing such a pedantic issue?  And even then, you're wrong.  The Factbook is using Canada's census numbers, it's just - like I said - they need to be updated.  Their percentages are from the 2011 census, as indicated by the "(2011 est.)" at the end of the Canada entry in the original link.  Why is the US entry different?  Probably because they're using the way the US Census Bureau breaks down "race," as the bureau doesn't have detailed data on ethnic groups like Canada does.  It's clear the Factbook's primary source is a country's own census, but you're right, it's probably a vast conspiracy.  And CIA is somehow doing it for political reasons to promote the great melting pot, yet is shockingly stupid about it by not including their largest racial/ethnic minority.  And I'm very well aware the Factbook doesn't have a category for Hispanic/Latinos.  Who gives a shit?  It doesn't change the fact everybody knows Hispanics are the largest racial minority and looking up data on their percentage takes two seconds.  That's why the bureau does include a "Hispanic or Latino" category, as well as a "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino" category.

No, I'm suggesting they've been oppressed and feared by white people because they look different.

Hey, I responded because you sneered at "tons of diversity there, those English and French look so different!" 

Most Hispanic people consider themselves white. You seem to be calling your white people more ethnically diverse because they look different. Not white enough? You brought back an old, old memory for me, having some old English broad tell me Eastern Europeans were ok because they were white, even if they were Catholic, whereas Italians weren't white, they were dagoes. To me you are saying Latin Americans are your dagoes.

You are calling the US more diverse based on colour alone, people who "look different", your words. And you are equating "most" with how large certain groups are ("50 percent larger...more people who look different"). 

Let me give you the Oxford dictionary definition of diverse: showing a great deal of variety; very different.

Three large groups of the same people don't make the US more diverse. The most diverse countries in the world are in Africa, where countries have 100s of different tribes and languages. They all look the same, though, more or less. Among the least diverse countries in the world is Argentina, where 97% are white and speak Spanish and 90% call themselves Catholics.

The US falls in the middle in terms of diversity. Both Canada and Mexico are more diverse than the US in terms of ethnic backgrounds and languages and culture.

The very fact that 20% of Canadians are foreign born and 12.9% in the US are foreign born is an indicator of diversity.

And I'm going to take a leaf out of your book, and I'm going to say I'm done with this topic. If you want to discuss it in greater detail, open a thread. I responded to you because of your exaggerated  claim about America's diversity. The US is a diverse country, no doubt, but your comments about Canada are just silly.

eta: Link to Wikipedia, toad facts, which you could have looked up instead of the CIA. Canada, #60, Mexico, #71, the USA #85. Top 40 countries are pretty well African. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level

 

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

A world rid of guns (and other worse weapons) is certainly one of my dreams. But since we don't live in an ideal world, I'd be content to limit guns to the police and military.
Civilians don't need no fucking guns. Pellet guns are more than enough to shoot, and if you really want hunting to be a sport, use a bloody bow.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Civilians don't need no fucking guns. Pellet guns are more than enough to shoot, and if you really want hunting to be a sport, use a bloody bow.

The only downside to this is that some people will no longer be able to reassure us that they have huge penises. I really struggle to tell how manly someone is if I have to take their word for it, I need to see them decked out in guns, ammo and maybe a rocket launcher. Then I'm very impressed with how manly they are, and also jealous of their freedom. And I wish that I was that free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that as a poor Aussie, I don't get with no guns.

[Jon_Stargaryen]

On 3/5/2018 at 3:46 PM, Leofric said:

Chicago just illustrates that gun control needs to be addressed at a national level, the local level doesn't work if your neighbors aren't following the same rules.

Exactly.

If you look at the states surrounding IL, it's simple enough to understand why gun control laws aren't working. They have weak to non-existent gun-control, making them the perfect place to smuggle guns from.

https://www.kith.org/jed/2018/02/23/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-dont-work/

[Jon_Stargaryen]

5 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

What of the roughly 70% of women who own firearms that cite protection/self defense as the reason for firearm ownership, are they projecting irrational fears?  What guns do you guys want banned?  And from whom, just civilians, or police and military as well?

Let's be honest; the weapons we're all talking about are high-powered/capacity riffles and and other weapons in that league.

I myself have a couple of handguns (which I keep in different parts of my house, separate from the clips) and a bolt action riffle for recreational hunting, which I keep stored away from my home.

And I don't think anyone is really advocating for these weapons to be taken out of the hands of trained law enforcement officials or trained armed forces combatants. This is because laws aren't going to stop everyone; they'll stop some, but those who are truly intent on taking a life won't be deterred.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, while you're asking, yes I'd like to see the police significantly less armed than they are now, or at least less likely (by training) to use lethal force.  Right now all they need to do is say they were scared and they can shoot anyone with zero professional consequences.  

I don't think we need to restrict military arms. It's not like there are scores of angry young soldiers shooting up schools with their service weapons.  Although on the whole, I think the defense budget is bloated beyond justification.   

As far as women being concerned with their self-defense, that's a legitimate concern.  All case law aside, I think that restricting all firearm magazines to 6 or 5+1 for civilians makes sense.  Handgun or long gun.  There isn't a legitimate use of a firearm that requires more than that.  I'd also like to see, nationally, a strict licensing process, universal background checks with a longer waiting period (I think 30 days is reasonable), and yes, a strict registry system where if a gun you bought is used in a crime and you didn't report it stolen, you're on the hook.

I wouldn't expect this to stop school shootings, but it will make them less devastating.  I doubt the Vegas killer could have done so much damage reloading every 5 shots.  

It'd be a good-faith gesture on the part of law abiding gun owners that they support reasonable checks on super-easy violence.  Remember that the Vegas guy was a law abiding, responsible gun owner until he started killing people.  

And honestly, as someone who's owned guns in the past and is also a longtime marijuana smoker, fuck you crybaby gun enthusiasts.  I've been arrested and ticketed for bothering no one smoking my own and locally grown weed.  I don't buy cartel shit.  And for older weed smokers, they had it even worse.  There are people in this country in jail for possessing weed, and the pro-gun crowd is whining about having to take a fucking class or get a license or register your fucking gun.  Zero sympathy.  Seriously the gun snowflakes can all go pound lead splattered sand at the range.

 

 

Spot on. 

To the bolded line, it's one of thing things that drives me nuts when the gun debate comes up. You always hear people use the throwaway line, "But what about the responsible, law abiding gun owners?" Well, I don't have any statistics, but I think it's a reasonable guess that most of the people who commit mass shootings were law abiding citizens up until the moment they began to slaughter people. 

1 hour ago, Jon_Stargaryen said:

Exactly.

If you look at the states surrounding IL, it's simple enough to understand why gun control laws aren't working. They have weak to non-existent gun-control, making them the perfect place to smuggle guns from.

https://www.kith.org/jed/2018/02/23/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-dont-work/

You don't even need to looks at multiple states. Just one city, Gary, IN, which is a short drive from Chicago, is a place where several of the guns used by gangs come from. 

1 hour ago, Jon_Stargaryen said:

Let's be honest; the weapons we're all talking about are high-powered/capacity riffles and and other weapons in that league.

Does it ever matter what we're actually talking about? Every time a person says that we should limit some types of weapons that civilians don't need and put in place mandatory background checks and close the gun show loophole, the response from Second Amendment absolutists, who are mainly the people who oppose some forms of gun control, is, "That's a slippery slope and you're gonna eventually demand to come and take all of my guns." Sure, there are a few people who actually want that, but it's not any where near the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. It's a straw man argument.

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

The only downside to this is that some people will no longer be able to reassure us that they have huge penises. I really struggle to tell how manly someone is if I have to take their word for it, I need to see them decked out in guns, ammo and maybe a rocket launcher. Then I'm very impressed with how manly they are, and also jealous of their freedom. And I wish that I was that free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that as a poor Aussie, I don't get with no guns.

Maybe if you had more guns you could finally end your devastating drop bear problem. 

[King Ned Stark]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

A world rid of guns (and other worse weapons) is certainly one of my dreams. But since we don't live in an ideal world, I'd be content to limit guns to the police and military.
Civilians don't need no fucking guns. Pellet guns are more than enough to shoot, and if you really want hunting to be a sport, use a bloody bow.

Yeah, in a fantastically hypothetical situation, I would have all firearms destroyed, as well as the knowledge to make them.  

Some studies say there are more guns in America (and if you’re not American, I support your right to voice your opinion, but I don’t quite understand your vehemence, when there are probably a dozen other preventable death scenarios that cause more deaths than firearms in the U.S.) than there are people.  It’s my personal belief that the government would be really fortunate to collect a third of those, under a hypothetical ban-and-turn-in.  So there are 200+ million firearms still floating around, and we have Chicago on a grand scale.

To make matters worse, IMO, more gun owners keep their guns than destroy them, and more gun owners destroy them than turn them in.  So a government that is already spectacularly inefficient and corrupt, have no idea what kind of numbers they’re working with.  The only guns on any government list, AFAIK, are class III items; full auto, sbr, sbs, suppressors, etc.  Those items probably account for 1% of firearm purchases.

So, several problems arise overnight:

1- You’ve created millions of felons overnight, from people who have been perfectly law abiding citizens for their entire life.

2- You have a government that has just trampled on an amendment this country was founded on, looking utterly inefficient.  What’s their next move, trample the 4th, and go house to house?

3- The largest black market the world has ever seen has just been created.

This is a highly complex issue, insults and quips, as well blanket statements and bans may not have the desired result.  I mean, America has had a war on drugs for 30+ years; seems to me that problem is worse now than it was then.