Rand Paul on the View (presents argument for guns but Whoopi is stuck on talking pts.)

[valet]

t.







Compare a coordinated terrorist attack that happens once in a blue moon in France to thousands of people getting killed every year in daily life brehs.

To stop a terrorist attack that MIGHT happen once a year, you're going to have ten million people carrying guns every day? And that's not going to lead to WAY more people dying on the daily? Because unless millions of people are carrying guns, how you going to guarentee someone with a gun in there in that unexpected moment that the terrorist attack hits?

Yeah, I'm sure that the pistol in someone's back pocket is really going to scare a suicide bomber.

Or someone is going to pull out their little pistol that they took to their night at the concert and take out a coordinated attack from multiple guys with Kalishnikovs. Just start firing in a crowded room with hundreds of people, hoping you don't hit anyone else while you're trying to dodge fire from multiple assault weapons and explosions, hoping you're a damn good shot with that little short-barreled pistol, right?

I mean, gun-happy American civilians just pull out their pistols and stop devoted terrorist attacks left and right, right?





I'm not anti-gun ownership. I've owned guns myself. I'm anti-gun obsession and gun violence. My guns don't make me safe, and they're not for shooting other human beings. I don't bring them into situations that are likely to be dangerous, because I know they are likely to make the situation more dangerous. I don't walk around quaking in constant fear like I need my little gun to be my security blanket.

The men who built this country were so aggressively violent and pissed so many other people off that they felt their only route to survival was constant killing or the threat of killing. And ya'all want to buy into that same culture.

But isn't the a large part of Obama's argument for gun restriction is because of these mass killings use certain type of guns (i.e. Sandy Hook). Not really because people dying everyday from guns. Sure these Paris killings don't happen everyday but the point is with these mass killings the ban did nothing. Same thing with these mass killings in the U.S. They don't happen all the time either.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

But isn't the a large part of Obama's argument for gun restriction is because of these mass killings use certain type of guns (i.e. Sandy Hook). Not really because people dying everyday from guns. Sure these Paris killings don't happen everyday but the point is with these mass killings the ban did nothing. Same thing with these mass killings in the U.S. They don't happen all the time either.

Assault rifles with high-capacity magazines certainly make a certain kind of attack even more dangerous. And they're obviously not a defensive weapon - you're not going to hide that in your shoulder holster and you're not going to risk spraying the crowd.

But you're never going to get rid of every assault rifle in the country, so the kind of people who want to pull off those very rare, ultradeadly attacks are likely to be the kind of people who can acquire whatever kind of gun they need.

I'm more interested in the gun violence that leads to 300 people getting shot and a 100 of them getting killed every single day, most of which is happening one at a time. The ridiculous fact that 3 people a day get shot and killed by the very cops who are supposed to be protecting us, when other countries don't even have 3 people a year getting shot and killed by their cops. The fact that guns are the LEADING cause of death for Black men from 15-34, and in the top three leading causes of death for Black men in every age group from 1 to 44. Almost 50% of Black men who die between 15 and 24 die due to guns. And the 2nd leading cause of death for Black women from 15-34 is guns too.

I think there are relatively easy ways to address those issues, which would track guns better, improve background checks/waiting periods, and keep most guns off the black market, so the wrong people don't get a hold of them and so people with rash impulses can't get a gun right away. And which would improve police training and punishments in regards to fukking shooting people. But the main thing we have to do is change the culture that makes people so reliant on guns in the first place. Because until we do that, the laws aren't going to be passed, and even if they are passed they won't have a huge effect if people are still putting their trust in guns like guns are their god.

 

[soulfuljah]

Try to use come common sense. The combined population of the country being a factor of TWO different doesn't have anything to do with the cop killings being a factor of ONE HUNDRED different.

OK. Let's try this. According to the number that you gave, 0.0003% (.75 every 100k) are killed by cops with guns and you believe to be because of the increase of gun violence. Fair; you believe that the US's obsession for guns increases the propensity for violence and the proof should be in the pudding right? Everyone speaks on gun deaths in the US while ignoring the fact that for every homicide, there are nearly 2 suicides. Yes, suicide is the leading cause of gun death in the US. Matter of fact, the FBI noted that while gun ownership has increased, violent crime hasn't risen by much and some years decrease. They say that in the US, we own nearly 50% of all guns in the world, but per capita, our intentional homicide is nowhere near the top.

And while I'm talking about death rates, do you know how the UK tally their numbers for death rates? Convictions and evidence of foul play. If the US didn't added unsolved cases to the death count, the US would look like the safe haven of the world.

Also, have you ever researched violent crime rates of all the countries you names compared to the US.

I say that to say this. looking at the fact that while the increase of gun ownership has not increased violent crimes, can we say that police violence is a result of the rise of violent crimes that do not exist, or could it be that fact that more cops are just ready to shoot?




I don't think you're realizing how much you're feeding my argument here.

Really?

Of course other countries have their own policing issues. Yet they still don't kill people. Why do you think that is?

Reread what I wrote. Germany is heavy regulated due to the Nazi regime, UK don't even carry guns, and Australia, while not killing as many (they do kill though), has it's own set of policing issues.That may explain the number.

Of course most UK cops don't carry guns. That's a GOOD thing, and a product of their society's overall lower reliance on guns. Do you think they'd still carry guns if the cilivian population was as gun-crazy as they are in America?
And the UK police force does have special gun units. In the last year I saw numbers for, the gun-units in England responded to 12,000 incidents and fired three bullets...total. So no, "most of UK cops don't carry guns" isn't the whole answer.

I don't know if you know this or not, but UK banned the use of handguns, so of course these people have a low reliance on guns. Ironically, after the banned was enacted, violent crime went up. And while they don't have a "reliance" on guns, it's crazy how UK still has a crazy high violent crime rate per 100k.


You pulling some wack unrelated examples out of your ass. Native Americans, slavery, Holocaust, and Mao are "recent history", and have shyt to do with life in a 21st-century democracy?

Yes, tyranny has existed without guns.

However, a violence-hungry population which is obsessed with guns to "protect" itself will bring more tryanny on itself, not less.

There were plenty of Native American groups that got armed and fought back. How'd that go for them? There was armed Jewish resistance. Tell me again how that worked out? And Mao fought his way to power with a lot of people shooting back....didn't seem to reduce his power in the slightest.

21st century democracy? We are a republic homie

But anyway, those comments are in response to you stating that Americans are more likely to be killed by the powers that be because of guns and I used those examples to show you that the powers of be doesn't care if people have guns. They will kill who they have to regardless. Tell me about Gandhi's and Dr. King's obsession with guns. With the recent string of media coverage regarding cops killing blacks and some whites, how many of them had guns?
Not all Native Americans had guns (but the ones that did were hooks up...lol)
Compared to the 12 million estimated who died (I didn't say Jewish people because a lot more people died other than the Jewish), the thousands in the resistance groups were nothing.
And yes, Mao fought his way to power with the gun. That was his stern belief. "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun."



.

In red

 

[soulfuljah]

Assault rifles with high-capacity magazines certainly make a certain kind of attack even more dangerous. And they're obviously not a defensive weapon - you're not going to hide that in your shoulder holster and you're not going to risk spraying the crowd.

But you're never going to get rid of every assault rifle in the country, so the kind of people who want to pull off those very rare, ultradeadly attacks are likely to be the kind of people who can acquire whatever kind of gun they need.

I'm more interested in the gun violence that leads to 300 people getting shot and a 100 of them getting killed every single day, most of which is happening one at a time. The ridiculous fact that 3 people a day get shot and killed by the very cops who are supposed to be protecting us, when other countries don't even have 3 people a year getting shot and killed their cops. The fact that guns are the LEADING cause of death for Black men from 15-34, and in the top three leading causes of death for Black men in every age group from 1 to 44. Almost 50% of Black men who die between 15 and 24 die due to guns. And the 2nd leading cause of death for Black women from 15-34 is guns too.

I think there are relatively easy ways to address those issues, which would track guns better, improve background checks/waiting periods, and keep most guns off the black market, so the wrong people don't get a hold of them and so people with rash impulses can't get a gun right away. And which would improve police training and punishments in regards to fukking shooting people. But the main thing we have to do is change the culture that makes people so reliant on guns in the first place. Because until we do that, the laws aren't going to be passed, and even if they are passed they won't have a huge effect if people are still putting their trust in guns like guns are their god.

I respect your stance on police violence and gun violence among the black race, but do you own a gun? The reason I ask is because all legal gun purchases require a background check, that check mental and criminal history. What else do you believe that should check for in a background check that restricts gun ownership? What would tracking guns do? Would tracking guns stop anyone of the mass murders that occurred? No, they would not have. And it's impossible to keep guns off the black market and people who want them will find a way to get them which brings us back to the main issue. Stricter gun laws are not going to deter criminals who want to get them; you can use New York, LA, and Chicago as a case study.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

OK. Let's try this. According to the number that you gave, 0.0003% (.75 every 100k) are killed by cops with guns and you believe to be because of the increase of gun violence. Fair; you believe that the US's obsession for guns increases the propensity for violence and the proof should be in the pudding right? Everyone speaks on gun deaths in the US while ignoring the fact that for every homicide, there are nearly 2 suicides. Yes, suicide is the leading cause of gun death in the US. Matter of fact, the FBI noted that while gun ownership has increased, violent crime hasn't risen by much and some years decrease. They say that in the US, we own nearly 50% of all guns in the world, but per capita, our intentional homicide is nowhere near the top.

I actually think that the US propensity for violence increases the obsession with guns, and that then the cycle becomes self-affirming. The propensity for violence came first, the guns were just the tool. But when we promote the use of guns for violence, even for "protective" violence, we're continuing the cycle.

And our intentional homicide rate is absolutely at the top for developed nations.

And while I'm talking about death rates, do you know how the UK tally their numbers for death rates? Convictions and evidence of foul play. If the US didn't added unsolved cases to the death count, the US would look like the safe haven of the world.

Also, have you ever researched violent crime rates of all the countries you names compared to the US.

Nah, that quote about "if the US didn't add unsolved cases to the death count" is bullshyt. You must have read that off a gun blog.

The UK counts all murders as murders, whether they're solved or not. But if someone is tried, and the person is found not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide/self defence, then the killing is no longer considered a murder. That only drops the count by 10-15% - not nearly the difference that makes their murder rate a quarter of ours.

As far as other crimes, guns don't increase supposed "violent crime". Guns just make violent crime more deadly.

But no, not every supposed "violent crime" is the same type of violence. Two guys getting in a fight or someone holding a knife or a toy gun to help them commit a robbery isn't the same as a gang shooting. Yeah, England has a lot of stabbings, but something like 12,000 stabbings lead to about 275 deaths. Meanwhile, we have 50,000 shootings leading to 14,000 deaths. Each shooting counts the same as each time someone gets cut with a knife, but the're not the same.

I say that to say this. looking at the fact that while the increase of gun ownership has not increased violent crimes, can we say that police violence is a result of the rise of violent crimes that do not exist, or could it be that fact that more cops are just ready to shoot?

There hasn't been an increase in gun ownership. You really believe as more and more people are moving away from rural areas, as the country is getting less and less white, more and more urban, and more and more liberal, that more people are buying guns?

The only thing that has increased is the amount of guns that gun owners own. But the number of people owning guns has been stable or gone down.

And more American cops are just ready to shoot...why? Why are American cops more violent than the cops of any other Western nation?

Reread what I wrote. Germany is heavy regulated due to the Nazi regime, UK don't even carry guns, and Australia, while not killing as many (they do kill though), has it's own set of policing issues.That may explain the number.

How does "Australia has its own set of policing issues" explain why their police shoot to kill only twice a year?

It's true that some UK cops don't carry guns, but others do. And they're still not killing people. Explain. Why not have our cops not carry guns if it works so well?

And you think that "Germany is heavily regulated" by itself explains the difference between 1,000 shootings a year and 5 shooting a year. That's some awesome regulation. Why doesn't everyone adopt it if it works so well?

I don't know if you know this or not, but UK banned the use of handguns, so of course these people have a low reliance on guns. Ironically, after the banned was enacted, violent crime went up. And while they don't have a "reliance" on guns, it's crazy how UK still has a crazy high violent crime rate per 100k.

UK has virtually the same violent crime rate per 100k as we do. And a far lower homicide rate.

And UK's violent crime rate had a temporary spike a few years after the handgun ban, and then immediately went down well below pre-ban numbers. Any article that tells you that UK's violent crime rate is higher than it was pre-ban is outdated.

But anyway, those comments are in response to you stating that Americans are more likely to be killed by the powers that be because of guns and I used those examples to show you that the powers of be doesn't care if people have guns. They will kill who they have to regardless. Tell me about Gandhi's and Dr. King's obsession with guns.

Great examples.

Gandhi got free from colonialism by leading India in a 30-year battle with the White powers...and not only did he get India free, but only took 8,000 losses in the process. Gandhi wasn't even shot by the powers he was fighting against, he was shot by a crazy-ass radical Hindu who was pissed off that Gandhi was making friends with the Muslims.

Vietnam, meanwhile, used guns to try to get rid of colonialism. They also managed to get free after a 30-year battle....but took 2,000,000 losses in the process.

Hmmm...which approach led to a more tyrannical backlash...


Gandhi made a string of major civil rights victories, then got shot in the end. I think his non-violent movement took 100 or so losses. MLK took a bullet in the end, but the vast majority of the people were fine.

Malcolm X and the Black Panthers advocated a more gun-heavy approach. They did a bit of good work here and there, but they accomplished far less than MLK Jr. did, took far more violent tyrannical heat as a result, and lost a much higher % of their leadership to violence.

With the recent string of media coverage regarding cops killing blacks and some whites, how many of them had guns?

About 30% of people killed by cops were supposedly shooting at them. Another 20% were said to be pointing a gun at them, and another 15% were holding a gun but not pointing. So that's 65% of the 986 deaths where they had a gun.

Of the unarmed people shot and killed, a huge % were shot based on the police claim that they "thought he had a gun"

Yet somehow, unarmed people in other countries (even in countries like Finland, where many people have guns at home), aren't getting shot left and right because they police claim that they "thought they had a gun". In Finland, 30% of the population owns guns....but police only fired SIX bullets in the course of duty in 2013. Because Finnish people don't run around with their guns in their pocket claiming they need them "for protection".

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I respect your stance on police violence and gun violence among the black race, but do you own a gun?

Yes, two.

The reason I ask is because all legal gun purchases require a background check, that check mental and criminal history. What else do you believe that should check for in a background check that restricts gun ownership?

Not even close to true. Many states do not require a background check. Even in states where a background check is required, there are often MANY legal ways to buy a gun without one, such as person-to-person sales. In other places, the background check is voided if it can't be done in time, which is often true in states that don't have long enough waiting periods.

And the number one additional thing that should be checked is character references. That is done in some states, but not most, especially not the ones that don't require waiting periods. A lot of these crazy loners don't have 3 people who would vouch that they're not about to do something terrible with the gun.

What would tracking guns do? Would tracking guns stop anyone of the mass murders that occurred? No, they would not have.

Tracking isn't about stopping mass murders - that's what waiting periods and improved background checks are for. Tracking is very stopping the more everyday criminal use of guns, which covers the majority of the murders. Most guns used in crime get there through straw purchases and the black market. Those guns nearly all start off legally bought, then are immediately illegally transfered.

If every transaction was tracked, then there would be accountability for the supposedly "legal" buyers who then transfer the guns to illegal owners. This is already illegal, but it's never prosecuted, because it's almost impossible to prove that the person KNEW that the person they were transfering the gun to was illegally purchasing it. If background checks were required at every step and every step was tracked, plausible deniability is gone.

And it's impossible to keep guns off the black market and people who want them will find a way to get them which brings us back to the main issue. Stricter gun laws are not going to deter criminals who want to get them; you can use New York, LA, and Chicago as a case study.

Let's take the following measures: A one-month waiting period with full background checks, one gun can be bought a month, all transfers tracked.

This would completely dry up the straw market. The "legal" purchasers with clean records who start the process wouldn't be willing to risk a criminal record for the tiny profit that would come from only moving one gun a month. And they wouldn't have any way to squeeze out of the charges since they'd have to report and have background checked each sale. Sure, they could still move one gun a month without reporting, but the second their guns got traced to crimes they'd be fukked.

This would seriously slow the movement of guns into criminal hands. The people with clean records willing to move them just wouldn't be around. The commission for the few willing would go way up, prices on the black market would go way up and more people would be priced out of guns. Just like it was in the old days before gangbangers were heavy into the drug trade - guns used to be way less common and whole blocks had to share one gun sometimes.

you can use New York, LA, and Chicago as a case study.

You know that's ridiculous. City gun laws aren't nearly as effective as state and federal laws, because you can just drive outside city limits and pick up your gun there.

But that being said, you picked three awful examples. Out of 84 cities with at least 250,000 people, their murder rate rank is:

19th - Chicago at 15.1 deaths/100,000
45th - Los Angeles at 6.7 deaths/100,000
64th - New York at 3.9 deaths/100,000


So Los Angeles, despite being the gang capital of America, is in the bottom half, and New York's homicide rate is lower than fukking Portland and Colorado Springs

Obviously, New York and Calfornia's relatively strong gun laws are doing some good. Chicago might have been hard-off either way, but being right next door to Indy and their loose-as-hell gun laws doesn't help. Still, they're not the "murder capital of America" that they're claimed to be.

You know what cities are at the top? St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans. You want to compare the gun laws in Missouri, Michigan, and Louisiana and see what they're like compared to Illinois, California, and New York? Tons of other loose gun law areas - Memphis, Miami, Cleveland, Cincy, Kansas City, Atlanta, Indianapolis - are also filling up the chart higher than Chicago...and WAY ahead of New York and Los Angeles. MOST of the cities ahead of Chicago on the chart are from states with relatively lax gun laws.

And that's even considering the faulty current state of gun laws. If states adopted the kind of laws I'm suggesting, the effect would be even greater. And legal gun owners who weren't looking to shoot people or sell guns to crooks or unstable people would only be minorly inconvienced.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Here's the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Officer comes to evict a guy.

Dude gets out a rifle and puts it in the officer's chest with his 12-year-old daughter in the room.

Officer shoots guy. Bullet goes through man's arm and hits 12-year-old. She dies.



Getting evicted is fukking horrible. I get you trying to defend your family's home. And I ain't even going to start defending the officer's actions.

But what the fukk are you doing pulling your gun on an armed man when your 12-year-old daughter is in the room?

That's where this gun-crazy country has us. People who trust in guns to defend themselves (civlians and officers both) don't think through situations at all - pulling a gun is the first, last, and only serious response they can come up with.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Oh, and here's another one - 14-year-old boy just got shot and killed by his dad who "mistook him for an intruder".

That's just after a 27-year-old woman got shot by her mother who "thought she was an intruder".

Reminds me of just a year and a half ago when Jonathan Ferrell got gunned down by police after a car accident because when he tried to get help, a homeowner, "thought he was an intruder".

This shyt happens all the time.