Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[Lee]

I can't read what everyone is saying, my server is acting slow.

But let me take it this has turn into a guns debate, whether we should or shouldn't have them?

But the second amendment should not be changed, period.

People are going to kill, regardless, they've been doing it since the existence of mankind, well before guns exist.

Guns make it easier for anyone to protect themselves, and taking that away to me would be scary.

I am for the side of keeping the guns, but your argument is not true. Guns 100% make it easier to kill and not just defend and those 1st world countries without legal guns have 1/4th the murder rate per 100k as the us. Almost across the board.

That said, outlawing cars would save lives too, so i am not saying do not allow guns, just pointing out your argument is flawed.

 

[JSS2306]

Federal Firearm Licensees unlawful activity will always prevail over any background check. The underground market for guns is an unstoppable force as long guns are produced at all. Stolen guns make up mere single digit percentage points of the underground gun market where shady dealers are doing most of the dirty work.

Anyone who thinks you can just ban guns or instill stricter background checks are kidding themselves.

 

[spydy13]

What you're advocating is extremely unconstitutional. You realize that, right?

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean the constitution can't be changed.

 

[AZ_]

I don't actually think gun ownership is even relevant for this particular case.

This is a false narrative, and I can explain why if you like, but to sum it up, the correlation between lowering gun ownership per capita and homicide rates per capita isn't there.

I can go into this data in detail if you'd like, but the premise of your argument - assuming that is the premise - is flawed.

I don't really have any context to put this list in, other than to say that the countries I can actually decipher have far worse standards of living than the US.

I think the issues of crime in a multicultural and socioeconomically and ethnically diverse society like ours are virtually unprecedented. To solve crime however, most sociologists would likely agree, that society needs to provide greater opportunities.

Agree.

Now, opportunity wasn't the issue with this case; this guy was a lone gunman and that can't be stopped. But with the larger issues of people being killed in the streets of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Los Angeles, the solutions being provided here would not solve the problem.

You left out New York, was this by design?

Taking away my rights as a citizen to own a firearm is neither going to prevent me from owning a firearm without abiding by the law, and more importantly, is isn't going to prevent lawbreakers from possessing firearms. We aren't an island nation like Japan where we can use our customs departments to keep guns out; nor are we a politically regressive nation like Russia where we are fearful of uprisings therefore we imprison people for lengthy sentences for simply owning a means of protection.

I'm fully convinced that we'll never take away the right to own a gun or expect Americans to turn their weapons in. I don't know of anyone who realistically believes this.

What I resent is the implication that any step that seeks to regulate and own guns in a smarter, safer way is spun into the first step down the hill to total confiscation.

When did we decide that we need no responsibility to continually own and carry a deadly weapon? The current system for doing so is beyond a joke, this can't be disputed.

So, the solution to these problems isn't where the liberal ideology is looking.

Instead, it's in jobs, education, urban development, ending the war on drugs, reducing recidivism rates, etc etc; numerous progressive and conservative policies could help - but what we really need more of is opportunity to advance in society rather than abject poverty and hopelessness.

I don't disagree with the premise here, but I see no reason why it has to be one or the other...when clearly we need opportunity and other sensible gun legislation. Most notably, harsher punishments for irresponsible or illegal gun use, an increased intensity regarding background checks, and the improvement of the background check system itself.

 

[godfather]

I am for the side of keeping the guns, but your argument is not true. Guns 100% make it easier to kill and not just defend and those 1st world countries without legal guns have 1/4th the murder rate per 100k as the us. Almost across the board.

That said, outlawing cars would save lives too, so i am not saying do not allow guns, just pointing out your argument is flawed.

I don't think I said it doesn't make it easier to kill. But not everyone is a man, and has the physical strength and ability to actually defend themselves when in harms way.

If some 240 pound guy for example is beating the living shit out of his wife, she might not have the means to actually defend herself, if she doesn't have a gun for example.

My point is, people are going to kill regardless whether guns are legal, or illegal. Do you really think the killing rate has exploded this high, just because of guns?

For example, if you strip away guns, I think you risk the chance of increasing violence.

More people would be incline to break into homes without fear of repercussions. If you're a criminal, and you know some 78 year old woman living alone, and has no means to protect herself, then she can become easy prey.

Look the system should be strict on access to guns, I get that, it's never going to be a flawless system though. Sick people, criminals, and those that don't belong with weapons are going to fine ways to get them.

Even if you make them illegal, they're still going to exist. Just like drugs are illegal, and what good has that done?

 

[AZ_]

Racial component?

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…What sent me over the top was the church shooting," he said, referencing the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal shooting that killed nine worshippers in South Carolina in June.

"And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them,” the document states, according to ABC, which said it wasn't clear whether he meant the Charleston victims or his own victims.

In the obscenity filled outburst, Flanagan condemned Dylann Roof, the accused Charleston church shooter, who authorities say was motivated by racial hatred of African Americans. "As for Dylann Roof? You [deleted]! You want a race war [deleted]? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …[deleted]!!!" reads Flanagan's document, according to ABC.

 

[Lee]

My point is, people are going to kill regardless whether guns are legal, or illegal. Do you really think the killing rate has exploded this high, just because of guns?

Even if you make them illegal, they're still going to exist. Just like drugs are illegal, and what good has that done?

First question, yes, if we took away guns the murder rate would be cut in about 1/4th. Just a fact. now, this goes hand in hand with the 2nd question, as it would take lots of time to get enough guns off the streets to make a dent in the fact they are no longer legal and thus all over the place, thus not necessarily making it completely futile, but definitely an up hill battle.

Now i think owning a gun should be legal. Many dangerous things are legal. My main argument is you are lying to yourself or you believe the crap the NRA spews out.

Guns do kill people, societies that dont have them have much less murders across the board. People arent going to have a drive by shooting with a cross bow.

But that alone isnt enough to make them illegal.

 

[godfather]

First question, yes, if we took away guns the murder rate would be cut in about 1/4th. Just a fact. now, this goes hand in hand with the 2nd question, as it would take lots of time to get enough guns off the streets to make a dent in the fact they are no longer legal and thus all over the place, thus not necessarily making it completely futile, but definitely an up hill battle.

Now i think owning a gun should be legal. Many dangerous things are legal. My main argument is you are lying to yourself or you believe the crap the NRA spews out.

Guns do kill people, societies that dont have them have much less murders across the board. People arent going to have a drive by shooting with a cross bow.

But that alone isnt enough to make them illegal.

Making guns illegal, would not at stop them from being made. All it would do is make it easier for criminals to access them, and not good honest people that simply have guns just for protection.

If you outlawed guns being made, period, obviously that would help a lot, but that's never happening.

If there's a demand for something, it's not going to stop being made, just because it's illegal.

 

[gourimoko]

I think this is a better chart

KI, that's from the same article; that graph shows the same data with the same conclusion. There is no correlation on the graph between gun ownership and homicide rates. That's what the line on the graph is showing you, and that's also the conclusion presented in the article cited.

Even this chart isn't the best, though. Why is it number of guns per 100 people, it should be simply number of people with a gun per 100 people.

I think the reason the graph is done this way is because registration varies from jurisdiction. However, I don't think you'd notice much of a difference since the number of guns and number of people in America are coincidentally nearly the same amount (~320M).

I would expect that the average gun owner in america has a heck of a lot more guns than the average gun owner in other developed countries.

I doubt that, big time.

Enthusiasts sure, but guns in the states are far more expensive than in other countries.

But even without accounting for that, two things strike me.

1 - only 4 developed countries have a higher homicide rate than the US. I would wonder what is different about those countries to explain it.

Indeed, but how many developed countries have larger populations or more diversity?

2 - everyone else has lower homicide rates than the US.

That's not true.

All of our guns didn't help lower the rate as some want to suggest. Some countries are have incredibly lower homicide rates.

Again, the graph you just posted doesn't show the causative effect you're describing.

Something needs to be done to move our country to the left side of this chart

But the countries to the left of this chart are very different than the United States.

I don't think it's fair to argue that this graph has anything whatsoever to do with gun ownership.

Again, the article you're citing came to the exact opposite conclusion you've come to, and you've cited it's statistical data to make an opposing argument. The regression data shows your conclusion that there is a causative relationship, or even some degree of correlation, is not true.

Again, there is no statistical evidence, whatsoever, that there is a link between gun ownership and higher homicide rates.

 

[gourimoko]

I don't really have any context to put this list in, other than to say that the countries I can actually decipher have far worse standards of living than the US.

That's a great point, and I'd agree... Standards of living have a lot more to do with this problem than gun ownership. Standards of living in the United States are not as good as many people here might assume.

You left out New York, was this by design?

No. Add it in.

I'd also say that Chicago and New York and Los Angeles all have very strict gun ownership laws and regulations that don't work.

I fully convinced that we'll never take away the right to own a gun or expect Americans to turn their weapons in. I don't know of anyone who realistically believes this.

You'd be surprised.

What I resent is the implication that any step that seeks to regulate and own guns in a smarter, safer way is spun into the first step down the hill to total confiscation.

Steps like what though?

When did we decide that we need no responsibility to continually own and carry a deadly weapon? The current system for doing so is beyond a joke, this can't be disputed.

What do you mean it can't be disputed? What requirements should there be for owning a firearm?

More importantly, what requirements should there be to exercise any right?

I don't disagree with the premise here, but I see no reason why it has to be one or the other...when clearly we need opportunity and other sensible gun legislation.

Think about this though, again, you're appealing to some common sense that we don't share.

The need for further gun legislation is not apparent to me at all.

Most notably, harsher punishments for irresponsible or illegal gun use,

Harsher than what's already the law? Why? What will this accomplish? Who is being deterred by this?

an increased intensity regarding background checks,

Background checks are already very intense - what more needs to be done?

and the improvement of the background check system itself.

In what respect?

 

[gourimoko]

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean the constitution can't be changed.

And you finally understand that you're advocating that we surrender some portion of our liberty; you understand that you're arguing for a less-free society, right?

 

[spydy13]

And you finally understand that you're advocating that we surrender some portion of our liberty; you understand that you're arguing for a less-free society, right?

Do you believe in any form of background checks? From what I understand of your opinion it seems like any barrier between you and a gun is an infringement on your rights.

 

[gourimoko]

Do you believe in any form of background checks? From what I understand of your opinion it seems like any barrier between you and a gun is an infringement on your rights.

Why can't we have an honest conversation?

This is the fifth time I've asked you this question.

I'll say it again...

You readily admit what you're proposing is unconstitutional. I asked you to simply admit that what you're advocating is for a partial surrender of specific liberties we enjoy today; you're advocating for a less-free society.

Your response is to ask me if I believe in background checks. That's not an answer.

You said you want to amend the constitution to advance your plan, again, would you agree that you are advocating for a less-free society?

Just answer the question straight up...

 

[Lee]

Making guns illegal, would not at stop them from being made. All it would do is make it easier for criminals to access them, and not good honest people that simply have guns just for protection.

If you outlawed guns being made, period, obviously that would help a lot, but that's never happening.

If there's a demand for something, it's not going to stop being made, just because it's illegal.

If guns were completely illegal, eventually they would much, much harder to get and mostly gone.

But it would take generations for that to happen, and completely loony tunes.

My main argument was you said if they didnt exist people would find another way, and that my friend is only partially true and been proven. I am for their existence and legality though, but i like to argue factual points.

 

[Lee]

Why can't we have an honest conversation?

This is the fifth time I've asked you this question.

I'll say it again...

You readily admit what you're proposing is unconstitutional. I asked you to simply admit that what you're advocating is for a partial surrender of specific liberties we enjoy today; you're advocating for a less-free society.

Your response is to ask me if I believe in background checks. That's not an answer.

You said you want to amend the constitution to advance your plan, again, would you agree that you are advocating for a less-free society?

Just answer the question straight up...

Not to let him win, but do you believe in any changes to the back ground checks?

I dont know enough about their effects on the type of crazy murders that happen that make people want to up them.

I think a federal criminal background check makes a ton of sense, but i really cant imagine what else can be resaonably done.

If some asshat wants to mow me down with his car, what is going to stop him?