Be a Supporter!

New York's Gun Ban

  • 6,079 Views
  • 286 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 14:33:20 Reply

At 1/28/13 01:01 AM, Korriken wrote:
At 1/27/13 12:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Degal .50cal is an all american made Piece of shit because it's way to heavy and bulky, it handles like shit, the accuracy is shit and it's tiring to use and to loud.
that's because you lack the physical strength to handle the thing.

I can shoot it one handed and still hit the target so strength is not an issue although I don't think I could do it for to long. The degal is a POS just like American made cars of yesteryear.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 14:43:23 Reply

At 1/28/13 11:04 AM, TheMason wrote:
Yes the poverty-crime link is strong and causal. BUT there are major social differences between the US and those countries that significantly change the character of our class structure. We have two significant minority populations that make up an urban population that is a permanent second class with sub-par educational systems and limited economic opportunities. These sociological phenomenon is not present in Canada, Europe, or Australia.

LOL Canada is full of minorities in fact if your white you are an minority in Canada and I am not joking. In Canada I don't see the Philippinenos, Africans, Chinese, East Indians and Middle Easterners doing crime but I do see them working all kinds of jobs from service Industry to labor and even skilled Red Seal trades. In fact the majority of criminals in Canada are Native Canadians and the USA is not the only melting pot.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 15:39:16 Reply

You are ignoring the point Mason was making. It isn't strictly because of race.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 15:57:43 Reply

At 1/28/13 03:39 PM, Ceratisa wrote: You are ignoring the point Mason was making. It isn't strictly because of race.

We are not debating about race if you read it was about the direct correlation between poverty and crime.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 16:26:58 Reply

At 1/28/13 03:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: We are not debating about race if you read it was about the direct correlation between poverty and crime.

And Mason, rightfully, linked it with the socioecconomic status and cultural treatment of minorities in the US.

While the correlation between race and crime is heavily debatable, and fraught with both racism and anti-racism knee-jerking, Mason is 100% correct inthat the US has a fairly unique, and not so laudble racial situation. Canada does NOT share that with the US. The US' race relations is much more akin to the French's relations with their Muslim immigrant population. It is extremely tenuous and loaded with mistrust, distrust, and dislike on both sides.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 16:48:41 Reply

At 1/28/13 04:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/28/13 03:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: We are not debating about race if you read it was about the direct correlation between poverty and crime.
And Mason, rightfully, linked it with the socioecconomic status and cultural treatment of minorities in the US.

"There's a direct correlation between poverty and street crime." I guess I should have spelled it out that the quoted text highlights the link between the socioeconomic paradigm and peoples actions particularly people at a strategic economic disadvantage.

While the correlation between race and crime is heavily debatable,

I would interject and state that you must consider the link between socioeconomic status and race far before you consider the relationship between race and crime. I would just cut the race thing out completely and just consider the direct link between socioeconomic status and crime as you can see how it could make you come of as a racist if you are just jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. You must consider the fact that some people are at an economic disadvantage which intern makes them more inclined to commit low level street and gun crime over someone of wealthy status.

Mason is 100% correct inthat the US has a fairly unique, and not so laudble racial situation. Canada does NOT share that with the US. The US' race relations is much more akin to the French's relations with their Muslim immigrant population. It is extremely tenuous and loaded with mistrust, distrust, and dislike on both sides.

Six is one half dozen the other.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-01-28 19:56:07 Reply

At 1/28/13 04:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
We are not debating about race if you read it was about the direct correlation between poverty and crime.

No, what we are originally talking about is comparisons between the US and other countries in the developed world. My point is that there are many reasons that seperate the US from other countries...even developed countries.

"There's a direct correlation between poverty and street crime." I guess I should have spelled it out that the quoted text highlights the link between the socioeconomic paradigm and peoples actions particularly people at a strategic economic disadvantage.

No...I got you and I agree with you. Restating the premise serves no purpose, except for giving me another chance to point out my point (thank you).

In the US we have two racial groups that are at a strategic economic disadvantage because of historical and sociological factors unique to the US. Blacks in the US are unique in that from 1640 to 1864 many were slaves. From 1865-1970s Southern blacks lived under the fear of lynching and were divested of their civil rights in the South (including their second amendment rights) under the 'Black Codes'. Also, poverty in urban black populations has become institutionalized. Their schools have been neglected.

With the Latino population, you have a significant portion of this population that is here illegally and therefore experience a certain level of desperation. Limited in their options, crime becomes an attractive (and lucrative) alternative to legit economic activity.


I would interject and state that you must consider the link between socioeconomic status and race far before you consider the relationship between race and crime. I would just cut the race thing out completely and just consider the direct link between socioeconomic status and crime as you can see how it could make you come of as a racist if you are just jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. You must consider the fact that some people are at an economic disadvantage which intern makes them more inclined to commit low level street and gun crime over someone of wealthy status.

First of all, race cannot be ignored. To cut it out to simply avoid someone who lacks depth of thought to follow this theory is abhorrent to me. That smacks of cowardice and racist through passivity.

Secondly, I'm not jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. Neither was Camaro nor Ceratisa. My focus is on historical and sociological circumstances which are unique to the US...not making any conclusions about crime as a racial trait.

Finally, I am considering this economic disadvantage. Furthermore, I am offering an explanation of why that is so. Which brings us back around to the over-arching question: reducing gun crime. Numerous academic studies have shown that gun control is not linked to crime...whereas economic conditions are. Therefore, it is important to understand WHY such economic disadvantages exist. Once we identify these causes...we may address them through public policy.

Simply pointing out that these economic disadvantages exist and that the economically disadvantaged often (not always) resort to crime...does nothing to solve the problem.


Mason is 100% correct inthat the US has a fairly unique, and not so laudble racial situation. Canada does NOT share that with the US. The US' race relations is much more akin to the French's relations with their Muslim immigrant population. It is extremely tenuous and loaded with mistrust, distrust, and dislike on both sides.
Six is one half dozen the other.

It is very key to understanding why comparisons between the US and those countries fails to explain the phenomenon of US gun crime.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-02 11:09:08 Reply

Yeah, I've been reading Guinness World Records lately, and I found out that not only does the USA have the highest number of guns in the world, but it also has the highest number per person. There's at the most ninety-seven guns for every one hundred people. I heard that this country may also have the highest gun related crimes in the country, but I'm still saying we should do background checks and not make it stricter than that.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

emilywilliams
emilywilliams
  • Member since: Feb. 18, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-18 05:29:42 Reply

Good show. "If more representatives of gun manufacturers, the NRA, and politicians that support the second amendment were as well spoken as Mr Morgan, there would be no discussion about a ban on 'assault' weapons" . Pretty much agree with the idea that gun control should be permitted. No topic today is more polarizing than firearm control. The President is considering 19 separate measures to further control the transfer of firearms.

Source: Gun Control Debate

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-18 05:46:20 Reply

At 2/18/13 05:29 AM, emilywilliams wrote: Good show. "If more representatives of gun manufacturers, the NRA, and politicians that support the second amendment were as well spoken as Mr Morgan, there would be no discussion about a ban on 'assault' weapons" . Pretty much agree with the idea that gun control should be permitted. No topic today is more polarizing than firearm control. The President is considering 19 separate measures to further control the transfer of firearms.

Source: Gun Control Debate

It's more to do with propaganda see the more people bicker and whine about gun rights, gay marriage, Obama's birth certificate etc the less they are conscious of how the powers that be have them in check.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-18 12:19:53 Reply

At 2/18/13 05:29 AM, emilywilliams wrote: Good show. "If more representatives of gun manufacturers, the NRA, and politicians that support the second amendment were as well spoken as Mr Morgan, there would be no discussion about a ban on 'assault' weapons" . Pretty much agree with the idea that gun control should be permitted. No topic today is more polarizing than firearm control. The President is considering 19 separate measures to further control the transfer of firearms.

Source: Gun Control Debate

But the thing is,it is illegal to infringe on the 2nd amendment.

However, Obama does illegal shit all the time, so I suppose legality wouldn't suddenly be an issue for him

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-19 14:03:32 Reply

At 2/18/13 05:29 AM, emilywilliams wrote: Good show. "If more representatives of gun manufacturers, the NRA, and politicians that support the second amendment were as well spoken as Mr Morgan, there would be no discussion about a ban on 'assault' weapons" . Pretty much agree with the idea that gun control should be permitted. No topic today is more polarizing than firearm control. The President is considering 19 separate measures to further control the transfer of firearms.

Here's the problem Emily:

* We already have a level of gun control that is reasonable. Further efforts to control guns will not accomplish much other than draw resources away from programs that address the root causes of crime...and therefore would actually accomplish something in regards to lowering it. We've lowered the crime rate as far as we can with gun control.

* The president's measures will do nothing to stop people from dying. Assault rifles are very rarely used in crime. In 2012 of the 7,500 guns seized by the Chicago PD...only 300 were assault rifles or 0.04%. Hence, the assault weapons ban is just another government program that throws money at an imaginary program.

* The reason Piers Morgan looked so good in the early days of this resurgent debate is his guests were picked to make him look good. Alex Jones...really? You pick someone on the fringe? Or the president of the Gun Owners of America, the B-Team when it comes to making the pro-2nd amendment argument? After all, once he ran out of flamboyant pro-gunners he ran into people like Ben Shapiro. Morgan does not have empirical facts to back up his position.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-19 15:03:40 Reply

NEW IDIOT NY GUN LEGISLATION

N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance

A bill introduced in the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, would require the stateâEUTMs residents to acquire liability insurance as a condition for gun ownership.
âEUoeAny person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person,âEU the measure, dubbed S2353, reads.
NY person who has not purchased insurance in compliance with the law within 30 days of its passing would be in violation of the law. Such an occurrence âEUoeshall result in the immediate revocation of such ownerâEUTMs registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.âEU The bill also states that if a gun is stolen, the legal owner of that gun is responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police department.
Liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners is estimated to cost between $1,600 and $2,000 annually, the Examiner reports.

Source

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-19 15:51:00 Reply

U.S. Insurers Resist Push to Make Gun Owners Get Coverage

U.S. insurers are resisting a push by state legislators to mandate that gun owners buy coverage tied to the weaponsâEUTM risk, saying such laws may encourage irresponsible behavior. Requiring the policies would be impractical and could fail to limit gun violence, the American Insurance Association, a property-casualty trade group, said in an e-mailed statement.
âEUoeIt could have the opposite of its intended effect,âEU the AIA said in a statement. The laws may lead to reckless actions by gun owners who âEUoewill not have their own assets, property or income at stake,âEU the group said. âEUoeIt would be a sad irony if the outcome of such a mandate was more gun violence.âEU
Lawmakers are seeking to limit damage caused by guns after the massacre of 20 students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December. A gun- control bill in Massachusetts would fine firearms owners who donâEUTMt purchase coverage, and a California legislator has supported a measure that he said would require the insurance. Lawmakers behind the proposals said they wouldnâEUTMt make insurers liable for damages from criminal acts.

Source

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to New York's Gun Ban 2013-02-19 22:29:35 Reply

comment from that article

Guns are not cars, so you can't apply exactly the same logic to them. You do not want people to keep guns in the open parking lots like cars. And it does not have to be "full liability", perhaps for small guns owner is responsible for first 20K of damage, owner can insure against that. Yet for semi-automatic limit could be much higher. The idea is to put SOME responsibility on the owner of the gun, so he/she takes all reasonable measures to protect the gun from being stolen. There is nothing wrong with considering insurance as a method for this, especially because you hear so many people suggesting it, there must be some logic in it.

As for insurance companies saying they do not want to do it - it is just a political gesture, there is a lot of money to be made - I bet they will jump on it with enthusiasm.

HAHAHAHA oh my god the ignorance concerning firearms.
That crap is why it is impossible to debate the pro gun control side. They don't actually understand guns.