Another school shooting

[Emo EMAW]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair. 

[michigancat]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair.

I never drive to work but I pay for traffic law enforcement.

[Emo EMAW]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair.

I never drive to work but I pay for traffic law enforcement.

You pay property tax on a vehicle you never use?  Seems like your own fault.

[Institutional Control]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair.

I never drive to work but I pay for traffic law enforcement.

You pay property tax on a vehicle you never use?  Seems like your own fault.

I'm pretty sure traffic law enforcement funding comes from more sources than just vehicle property tax.

[Emo EMAW]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair.

I never drive to work but I pay for traffic law enforcement.

You pay property tax on a vehicle you never use?  Seems like your own fault.

I'm pretty sure traffic law enforcement funding comes from more sources than just vehicle property tax.

Fair enough.  But I'm also sure even someone who walks or rides a bike or takes public transit benefits from a functioning traffic system. 

[michigancat]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair.

I never drive to work but I pay for traffic law enforcement.

You pay property tax on a vehicle you never use?  Seems like your own fault.

I'm pretty sure traffic law enforcement funding comes from more sources than just vehicle property tax.

Fair enough.  But I'm also sure even someone who walks or rides a bike or takes public transit benefits from a functioning traffic system.

Yes, just like the kids at Sandy Hook could have benefited from a more rigorous gun registration and education program.

[Institutional Control]

There was actually a conversation by co-workers today about the legitimacy of Sandy Hook being a hoax. Man... I work with some dumb dumbs.

[Emo EMAW]

Here's a question:  should gun owners bear the administrative and law enforcement costs to ensure gun laws are followed?

Yes. Tax the eff out of ammunition.

So tax responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals?  Doesn't seem fair.

I never drive to work but I pay for traffic law enforcement.

You pay property tax on a vehicle you never use?  Seems like your own fault.

I'm pretty sure traffic law enforcement funding comes from more sources than just vehicle property tax.

Fair enough.  But I'm also sure even someone who walks or rides a bike or takes public transit benefits from a functioning traffic system.

Yes, just like the kids at Sandy Hook could have benefited from a more rigorous gun registration and education program.

Then the kids/parents of kids should pay for it. 

[HeinBallz]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

[michigancat]

Then the kids/parents of kids should pay for it. 

I think it's fair for society to share in the costs, with much of the cost falling to gun owners via registration. You know, like automobiles.

[Paul Moscow]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

From looking at the chart it would appear that having guns for reasons of "self-protection" is a desire that exceeds the threat.

[Emo EMAW]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

From looking at the chart it would appear that having guns for reasons of "self-protection" is a desire that exceeds the threat.

FTR lots of people have them for fun first, for protection second.

[michigancat]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

The fully automatic ban in 1934?

[HeinBallz]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

From looking at the chart it would appear that having guns for reasons of "self-protection" is a desire that exceeds the threat.

Just because something is not necessary does not give anyone the right to take it away from someone. 

[HeinBallz]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

The fully automatic ban in 1934?

I would wager coming out of a depression had more to do with the decline in violence.

[michigancat]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

The fully automatic ban in 1934?

I would wager coming out of a depression had more to do with the decline in violence.

you would lose a shitload of money on that wager.

[HeinBallz]

JTMHTD, is your position that mass shootings and gun violence in general is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of being American?

To some extent. We have developed our culture, and over the last 50 years, it has become more violent and immoral. It's just more sad when an innocent child gets caught up in our stink. My problem is this bullshit knee-jerk reaction and political posturing to do anything that will do absolutely nothing but make good people the scapegoats. Nobody gives a crap if gang bangers or white trash meth addicts kill each other, thousands per year, but throw a few kids into the equation and suddenly everyone is outraged and demands action today.

We live in a violent society, and nothing will change until we put the brakes on our immoral entertainment addiction.

Homicide rates are at levels last seen in the 1960's and aren't far off from the lowest recorded levels ever which occurred in the late 1950's.



I never understand these mythical eras that people on the right swear by. The 1950's pleasantville, faux-conservative era that we must work backwards towards. Or the idea that it's still 1992 and all gun-related deaths are by crack heads and "gang-bangers".

The idea that you say we are more "immoral" a completely baseless, unprovable fantasy term, is enough to know that you prescribe to these ridiculous notions that there was one single era when the majority of the people were "good" and if we could just get back to that everything would be alright again.

From looking at that chart, it would appear gun policy has no effect on violent murder at all.

The fully automatic ban in 1934?

I would wager coming out of a depression had more to do with the decline in violence.

you would lose a shitload of money on that wager.

Support your response with some stats or stfu.

Why didn't the gun control act of '68 do anything? Why did violent murder begin its decline 2 years before the assault weapons ban took place?

[kstatefreak42]

HeinzBallz slappin down tards.

[michigancat]

Support your response with some stats or stfu.

Why didn't the gun control act of '68 do anything? Why did violent murder begin its decline 2 years before the assault weapons ban took place?

there is good legislation and bad gun legislation - not all are created equally.

Also, the US was absolutely not pulling out of the depression in 1934. Absurd to make that declaration. You should have argued that ending prohibition had a lot to do with it (and had a very valid point), but you didn't because you aren't a very rational person and probably shouldn't own firearms:

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

[HeinBallz]

Saw a ted talks yesterday that reminded me of this whole gun control debate.

http://youtu.be/b_6-iVz1R0o?t=2m52s

We're all just looking for some random patter - but in reality; stats on banning guns are equally as irrelevant as stats on having more guns in how they affect violence.

Look at us... just a bunch of carrier pigeons pecking buttons.

[michigancat]

Saw a ted talks yesterday that reminded me of this whole gun control debate.

http://youtu.be/b_6-iVz1R0o?t=2m52s

We're all just looking for some random patter - but in reality; stats on banning guns are equally as irrelevant as stats on having more guns in how they affect violence.

Look at us... just a bunch of carrier pigeons pecking buttons.

I don't want to ban guns at all.

[HeinBallz]

Support your response with some stats or stfu.

Why didn't the gun control act of '68 do anything? Why did violent murder begin its decline 2 years before the assault weapons ban took place?

there is good legislation and bad gun legislation - not all are created equally.

Also, the US was absolutely not pulling out of the depression in 1934. Absurd to make that declaration. You should have argued that ending prohibition had a lot to do with it (and had a very valid point), but you didn't because you aren't a very rational person and probably shouldn't own firearms:

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

well atleast you provided one good point - prohibition. But suggesting a ban on fully automatic weapons accounted for that large of a drop is just as ridiculous as attributing it to any one change in policy.  Are you suggesting that all of the murder that was committed in the 20's & 30's was directly at the hands of someone with a fully automatic weapon?  That's the only way people killed anyone?  Poof - fully automatic weapons are gone... gosh I guess we can't kill anyone?  absurd.

It does seems the chart's "Rapid drop" took place over a ten year span.  We were absolutely on our way out of the depression by the mid 40's... of course we were at war.  Perhaps there is no magic bullet to end this problem and it's all social & cultural.  While gun policy is certainly subject to social & cultural temperatures - one does not necessary precede the other - correlation does not equal causation. 

[HeinBallz]

Saw a ted talks yesterday that reminded me of this whole gun control debate.

http://youtu.be/b_6-iVz1R0o?t=2m52s

We're all just looking for some random patter - but in reality; stats on banning guns are equally as irrelevant as stats on having more guns in how they affect violence.

Look at us... just a bunch of carrier pigeons pecking buttons.

I don't want to ban guns at all.

sorry... restricting guns then.   I see it as the same thing really.  When we restrict them, and it has little to no impact at all - we naturally put more cards on the table.  Kind of like a pigeon pecking at buttons.

[michigancat]

Support your response with some stats or stfu.

Why didn't the gun control act of '68 do anything? Why did violent murder begin its decline 2 years before the assault weapons ban took place?

there is good legislation and bad gun legislation - not all are created equally.

Also, the US was absolutely not pulling out of the depression in 1934. Absurd to make that declaration. You should have argued that ending prohibition had a lot to do with it (and had a very valid point), but you didn't because you aren't a very rational person and probably shouldn't own firearms:

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

well atleast you provided one good point - prohibition. But suggesting a ban on fully automatic weapons accounted for that large of a drop is just as ridiculous as attributing it to any one change in policy.  Are you suggesting that all of the murder that was committed in the 20's & 30's was directly at the hands of someone with a fully automatic weapon?  That's the only way people killed anyone?  Poof - fully automatic weapons are gone... gosh I guess we can't kill anyone?  absurd.

It does seems the chart's "Rapid drop" took place over a ten year span.  We were absolutely on our way out of the depression by the mid 40's... of course we were at war.  Perhaps there is no magic bullet to end this problem and it's all social & cultural.  While gun policy is certainly subject to social & cultural temperatures - one does not necessary precede the other - correlation does not equal causation. 

You were the one saying that no gun legislation ever impacted homicide rates based on the information on the chart. Using the logic displayed in this post nothing could ever impact homicide rates based on the information on the chart. (which is far more reasonable)

Saw a ted talks yesterday that reminded me of this whole gun control debate.

http://youtu.be/b_6-iVz1R0o?t=2m52s

We're all just looking for some random patter - but in reality; stats on banning guns are equally as irrelevant as stats on having more guns in how they affect violence.

Look at us... just a bunch of carrier pigeons pecking buttons.

I don't want to ban guns at all.

sorry... restricting guns then.   I see it as the same thing really.  When we restrict them, and it has little to no impact at all - we naturally put more cards on the table.  Kind of like a pigeon pecking at buttons.

Yeah, it's the same except it's completely different. But using your logic, maybe a complete ban and seizure of all guns makes more sense.

[HeinBallz]

Yeah, it's the same except it's completely different. But using your logic, maybe a complete ban and seizure of all guns makes more sense.

except all force legitimizes & justifies resistance.  If you can believe that the majority of what causes these types of issues is social & cultural - the last thing you would want to do is justify some sort of resistance.

You were the one saying that no gun legislation ever impacted homicide rates based on the information on the chart. Using the logic displayed in this post nothing could ever impact homicide rates based on the information on the chart. (which is far more reasonable)

I'm saying it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest any one policy has any affect on violence.  Perhaps it dropped in the late 30's & 40's because of what was going on in the social climate.  Perhaps it peaked in the 60's because the baby boom post war had kids reaching the ages of 18-30; which happens to be the most common age brackets for violent offenders.  Maybe it peaked again in the 80's because baby boomer kids were having kids in that age bracket.  Maybe it was all economical.