The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Even MSNBC Admits It - Gun Violence is DOWN. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16253 Posts

Profile of tommy
FEMA fence?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 20:58, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 15:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
1) Stronger criminal sentences for violent crimes (e.g. life in prison for armed robbery); and
2) Increased border security, including building that fence.

I absolutely agree on both fronts. I'm all for it. And I've been all for the wall for years, for many reasons.


On a related note, I'd decriminalize or reduce sentences for what are commonly called victimless crimes, both in a philosophical basis, and a practical one (i.e. keeping available prison space for more serious crimes).
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16253 Posts

Profile of tommy
Hang the lawyers
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5022 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 15:44, Kevin Connolly wrote:
Rudy Guiliani had to clean-up Dave Dinkins mess. The City was a cesspool when Rudy Guiliani and fixed it. Other cities followed his lead to turn around their urban problems.

As someone who lived in NYC both during Dinkins's administration and Giuliani's administration, I can say you're wrong. Giuliani's administration was rife with corruption, special favors, and the worsening of race relations in the City. When your hand-picked Police Commissioner is indicted and currently serving a four year prison term, you know things are rotten. He was just the tip of the iceberg in an administration that let corruption run wild. If the city was a cesspool, Giuliani only added to it. His much vaunted "leadership" during 9/11 was based on false promises. He never stood up to fight for the families of the first responders when it came to actually compensating them for their sacrifices. If other cities have followed his lead, then it's no wonder municipal governments are in such bad shape around the country.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 20:56, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 18:23, RobertSmith wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 15:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.


You're blatantly lying. Those of us who believe in freedom have in fact offered suggestions. But because those suggestions don't include banning guns or restricting law-abiding from having them, they're chalked up to "never offering suggestions to reduce gun violence."

Can you disagree with me without calling me a liar? I'm merely mentioning what I see written on here...one side saying "we should do this" and another side saying "no we shouldn't" and that other side not offering up alternatives. I'm confused as to how that makes me a blatant liar but thanks for the insult.


There you go again. Saying the pro freedom side is not offering up alternatives is a lie. Look, it's either a lie or it's just plain ignorance.

There are plenty of alternatives that have been offered across at least a half-a-dozen threads and several dozen pages worth of content (much of which has been removed by TMC).

I think the simple fact is you just don't consider any suggestion that doesn't include bans or restrictions to be alternatives. So you sit up on your pedestal saying, "the other side isn't providing alternatives," and "we're the only ones trying for crying out loud."

That's simply not true. I think you know that but won't acknowledge it.

Here's some ideas...

1) Pass national conceal carry reciprocity.
2) Prohibit plea deals for crimes that involve the use of a firearm.
3) Mandatory 15 year minimum for committing a crime with a gun, no questions asked. 25 year mandatory minimum if the crime involved injury to the victim.
3) Improve our mental health system.
4) Castle doctrine laws in more states.
5) Secure the border and release Border Patrol Agents from criminal or civil liability if engaging in a chase on the border.
6) Reintroduce firearm training in schools across America.
7) Prohibit the United States government from small arms sales with ANY other country, regardless of whether they're allies.

There's 7 ideas.

Now go ahead and take them one-by-one and tell me how crazy I am and how none of these ideas will help.

But DO NOT tell me I haven't made suggestions.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I find it surprising that so many who espouse state's rights in other contexts notably ignore that argument when it comes to gun rights.

National concealed carry reciprocity means that citizens of states with the loosest requirements for getting a CCW would be able to carry them freely when traveling to states with stricter requirements, thus effectively defeating their laws.

So much for state's rights.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 16:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 13:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 12:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is here

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.


So you're saying that it IS a fact?


According to the data I linked to, there is less gun violence in the USA in 2012 than in 1993. I've already said that. What I don't know, and no one has provided any assistance, is whether the early 90s were particularly violent, making the current decline comparable to earlier years, or whether we are in a period of decline from a more stable earlier period.

What's hard to understand about what I posted?


One thing I find hard to understand is the intense level of scrutiny you seem to place on one side of the debate and the vacation your analytical rigorousness seems to go on when the other side of the debate is ripe for further inquiry to get to the truth of the matter.

As a for instance, IMO, it's clearly not feasible to eliminate guns in the United States by federal mandate; we have thousands of miles of a porous border with a country with extensive criminal gang ties to the USA and a vast economic disparity in living conditions, some of the busiest ports in the world, etc. In the USA, we have a pretty clear case of "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." Mileage may vary dramatically in Japan, a small island nation. Yet when it was suggested by analogy that strict gun control would be effective in the USA in part because it works so well in Japan, I don't remember you pointing out that blatant elephant in the room. But when there's a post about a marked decline in gun violence over the past 20 years, you immediately want to break down the numbers, go 20+ years before THAT, etc.

While pre-1990s numbers do have relevance to some questions, another thing I don't understand is how they're relevant to a central issue that's been discussed here: The vast decline in gun violence over the past 20 years in the USA, in complete opposition to what is commonly believed and commonly portrayed. One reason that some people may seem less interested than you think is justified in deciphering all the ways are wherefores behind the numbers is that they're irrelevant to the point being made: Led by the media and anti-gun politicians, people in the USA believe that rates of gun violence are either flat or have increased, and they're wrong.

Of course, there are ancillary, related, and "other" points that could be made and that the other numbers have bearing on (such as whether the decline in gun violence is attributable to the increase in gun ownership). But there are important points that are adequately supported in the article the OP links to that require no further inquiry.


Out of curiosity, what side of what debate do you think I'm on?

I have no objections to guns in general, and I'm in favour of moderate gun control (restricting some weapons, and registering legal firearms, for example).

I also don't think I've put particular scrutiny to anything here other than trying get some context for the decline in violent crime noted in the OP (a phenomenon, btw, that both you and I have alluded to in the past).

I am slightly confused.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20568 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 20:52, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 16:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
Passionate fans of the second amendment? Could you be more condecending?

Pathetic.

Wait till they get to a right that you really like. One like search and seisure. Oh wait they came for that one in the Patriot Act! Don't you see why ALL of your rights are important, and not to cherry pick them?

Gun violence is going down. What more do you need? That to me is proof that no amount of gun control short of taking them all will be enough for you guys.

Not intended to be condescending at all. Merely factual from what I see being written. You're a fan of the second amendment...the right to own a gun. It's something you're passionate about. Or am I mistaken? If I am, why all the fuss?


I am passionate about our constitution and our freedoms. As I said when they get to infringing one you may be passionate about there even if I don't like it I will defend it. Refered to as consistency.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20568 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 22:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I find it surprising that so many who espouse state's rights in other contexts notably ignore that argument when it comes to gun rights.

National concealed carry reciprocity means that citizens of states with the loosest requirements for getting a CCW would be able to carry them freely when traveling to states with stricter requirements, thus effectively defeating their laws.

So much for state's rights.


Umm yea sort of a defacto nationalised ccw permit program. Not a fan.

See Andrew that is the 10th amendment I am defending. See how it works?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 22:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I find it surprising that so many who espouse state's rights in other contexts notably ignore that argument when it comes to gun rights.

National concealed carry reciprocity means that citizens of states with the loosest requirements for getting a CCW would be able to carry them freely when traveling to states with stricter requirements, thus effectively defeating their laws.

So much for state's rights.


Wow. And yet all 50 states managed to work out drivers license agreements despite the fact that some states you can get a driver's license at 15, while others it's 16 or 17. Or the fact that in some states you must be a United States citizen to obtain a driver's license yet in New Mexico (and other liberal controlled states now) you can walk up to the DMV, admit you're committing a federal crime by immigration violation, and they'll tell you, "smile for the camera." And those licenses are still legit driving ANYWHERE in America.

Regardless of what the requirements are to get them, the person traveling as a guest in the other state would still be required to follow the laws of the state they're a guest in.

It's just like when New Mexico's interstate speed limit is 75mph, I can't continue to drive that fast in a state with a 65mph speed limit.

Or consider this - a Passport is a FEDERALLY ISSUED ID and has reciprocity across all 50 states as a form of identification.

But you already know these things, Bob. Someone as smart and well read as you must have some other reason then for throwing out the state's rights card.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The comparison to drivers licenses doesn't work. The way you describe it, national CCW reciprocity would be meaningless. I.e.- If a person with a Texas CCW visited New York, you seem to be acknowledging that he would have to follow New York law in any case, meaning that he wouldn't have the right to carry there anyway unless he met New York's requirements.

So what's the point of reciprocity then?
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 23:27, mastermindreader wrote:
The comparison to drivers licenses doesn't work. The way you describe it, national CCW reciprocity would be meaningless. I.e.- If a person with a Texas CCW visited New York, you seem to be acknowledging that he would have to follow New York law in any case, meaning that he wouldn't have the right to carry there anyway unless he met New York's requirements.

So what's the point of reciprocity then?


Of course it doesn't work. Because it blows your assessment of overcoming state's rights out of the water.

You clearly know squat about concealed weapons licenses and what national reciprocity would actually accomplish. Not going to bother with educating you to it.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
National CCW reciprocity has been repeatedly voted down for precisely the reasons I outlined. As it will continue to be.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5022 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
You clearly know squat about concealed weapons licenses and what national reciprocity would actually accomplish. Not going to bother with educating you to it.

Ah, clearly you must be the man from the Outreach Department.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2013-05-09 11:57, mastermindreader wrote:
National CCW reciprocity has been repeatedly voted down for precisely the reasons I outlined. As it will continue to be.


In the long run national reciprocity may prove to be irrelevant. More and more free states are expanding their laws to honor all other state's permits.

Much to your chagrin and that of some others, CCW is expanding, and, on a whole, is making people safer.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16253 Posts

Profile of tommy
The reason gun violence is down might be something to do with the fact that you are living in an ever increasing police state.

Which may also be causing global warming incidentally.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Andrew Zuber
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
2661 Posts

Profile of Andrew Zuber
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 22:42, Dannydoyle wrote:

See Andrew that is the 10th amendment I am defending. See how it works?

Now who's being condescending?
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
Andrew Zuber
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
2661 Posts

Profile of Andrew Zuber
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 22:26, RobertSmith wrote:
Here's some ideas...

1) Pass national conceal carry reciprocity.
2) Prohibit plea deals for crimes that involve the use of a firearm.
3) Mandatory 15 year minimum for committing a crime with a gun, no questions asked. 25 year mandatory minimum if the crime involved injury to the victim.
3) Improve our mental health system.
4) Castle doctrine laws in more states.
5) Secure the border and release Border Patrol Agents from criminal or civil liability if engaging in a chase on the border.
6) Reintroduce firearm training in schools across America.
7) Prohibit the United States government from small arms sales with ANY other country, regardless of whether they're allies.

There's 7 ideas.
(
Now go ahead and take them one-by-one and tell me how crazy I am and how none of these ideas will help.

That's what I was looking for. I can't say I agree with all of them, but #2 I'm definitely on board with, both #3's as well (though I think we've got to figure out some specifics for improving the mental health system and that one is a biggie.)
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20568 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2013-05-09 14:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-05-08 22:42, Dannydoyle wrote:

See Andrew that is the 10th amendment I am defending. See how it works?

Now who's being condescending?


Simply pointing out the concept for you. Not sure if you were keeping up.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20568 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Not to agree with Bob as it has been happening too often lately BUT the ccw reciprocity thingie does not really compare to a drivers license. I mean all 50 states license cars and drivers already. All pretty much on the same level. This would mean a federal law where the state where you can do the most with a ccw is the law of the land.

Even with drivers licenses you obey local ordinances. Not sure the comparison is valid.

I think thT states that wish to participate in the program should be able to.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Even MSNBC Admits It - Gun Violence is DOWN. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL