• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armed man arrested near White House wanted ‘fire a couple of shots,’ police say

And so do all the other "gun happy" States. The more guns the more gun deaths. It is so obvious it isn't funny.
'

I was disappointed my state, Oklahoma, is higher than Illinois, and that states where the folks to shoot are few and far between such as Wyoming and Montana have higher 'gun' deaths rates than Illinois. Alaska having double the rate of Illinois makes me wonder just what Sarah and her pals are doing up there! ;)
 
EDIT: Gun deaths include suicide, accidental and intentional justified shooting by police/others. Use only homicide gun deaths to get a better idea of "gun violence" actually related to crime.

Um, using 2008 numbers because? In 2012 there were 435 gun deaths (of 506 murders) in Chicago alone.

Try this site for 2010/2011 figures: Texas 2.91/100,000 and Illinois 2.93/100,000

Wow, so by cutting out all other deaths such as a child getting daddy's pistol and shooting his sister and just looking at murder you get the numbers to within .02 people per 100,000! Never mind the pro-pack 'em crowd claims what a great deterrence Concealed Carry is and how 'safer' everyone is if most every who wants one can have one you eliminate all the accidental deaths caused by firearms and the difference is .02

Wow, just wow... :(
 
2.91/100,000 vrs 2.93/100,000? that is a difference of 0.02

so they are statisically the same?

Yep. However if you look deeper you will see that crime in certain areas of large cities account for most of these gun homicides in virtually all states (red or blue). We do not have a gun problem we have a gang problem in the "tribal zones" of major cities. Texas statistics are skewed further by border violence due to the illegal drug trade. Rural Texas is actually quite safe even though we almost all have guns. ;)
 
Yep. However if you look deeper you will see that crime in certain areas of large cities account for most of these gun homicides in virtually all states (red or blue). We do not have a gun problem we have a gang problem in the "tribal zones" of major cities. Texas statistics are skewed further by border violence due to the illegal drug trade. Rural Texas is actually quite safe even though we almost all have guns. ;)

But why should that (ie rural versus urban) matter at all when the line is "more guns means less crime"?
 
Wow, so by cutting out all other deaths such as a child getting daddy's pistol and shooting his sister and just looking at murder you get the numbers to within .02 people per 100,000! Never mind the pro-pack 'em crowd claims what a great deterrence Concealed Carry is and how 'safer' everyone is if most every who wants one can have one you eliminate all the accidental deaths caused by firearms and the difference is .02

Wow, just wow... :(

The biggest change is by eliminating suicides (about 50% of all US gun deaths) and justified shootings (zapping criminals), accidental gun fatalities were only 951 nationwide in 2011.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
 
Nope. You're making it up.

7616917380_48c95a71a8_z.jpg


Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Illinois 3.5/100,000 - 364 deaths a year.
Texas 5/100,000 - 805 deaths a year.

Please... please.. stop making things up.

You have to subtract those that are self defense. That doesn't qualify. Look at violent crime.

Oh, and Texas has a border where the drug cartels are thicker than flies. That wildly skews the numbers.

Just look at the gun violence in Chicago alone. It's embarassing. It's like Cairo East.
 
You have to subtract those that are self defense. That doesn't qualify. Look at violent crime.

Because shooting someone in self-defense has nothing to do with violent crime

Oh, and Texas has a border where the drug cartels are thicker than flies. That wildly skews the numbers

Unlike Chicago, where there's almost no drug trafficking and isn't separated from a foreign nation by nothing but a body of water
 
But why should that (ie rural versus urban) matter at all when the line is "more guns means less crime"?

That is not my line. Obviously it depends upon who has the gun whether it will be used in a crime. It is clear that a higher percentage of folks are armed in the rural area where I live than in a nearby city like Austin, yet we have less crime. Criminals are basically a lazy lot and will tend to do their crime where they will face the least (armed) resistance. Gangs survive by using fear of reprisals to assure that nobody "witnesses" their crimes and generally operate in small urban areas that are easier to control, since vast rural areas are very hard to gain/maintain control over.
 
That is not my line. Obviously it depends upon who has the gun whether it will be used in a crime. It is clear that a higher percentage of folks are armed in the rural area where I live than in a nearby city like Austin, yet we have less crime. Criminals are basically a lazy lot and will tend to do their crime where they will face the least (armed) resistance. Gangs survive by using fear of reprisals to assure that nobody "witnesses" their crimes and generally operate in small urban areas that are easier to control, since vast rural areas are very hard to gain/maintain control over.

I've seen no evidence about rural areas having higher rates of gun ownership than urban ones. The evidence suggests otherwise.

However, I'm glad to see you reject the nonsensical "more guns = less crime" myth
 
You're right that it wasn't a CCW case. It's "open display". My bad

Which again falls under the "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: " and "or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places"

Was he in a gun free zone? If so then why isn't he charged with that also? Since he wasn't then we can only assume that he was not in a gun free zone. And the sensitive place would be if he had been on the white house grounds. Which he wasn't.

I do admit that the first part..the..."It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" might apply. But then it is so open ended as to be meaningless because one could argue that it would apply in this situation and could argue that it wouldn't apply and both assertions would be correct. As such its worthless.
 
Why eliminate suicides by gun? Are they not violent enough for you?

They are indeed violent, and we should give these perps the DP - woops, that would be moot. Why not compare the number of deaths from motor vehicles to those of guns? More deaths and far, far more injuries could be prevented by banning cars (or reducing the speed limit to 10 mph) than by banning (or limitting the ammo capacity of) guns and there are no constitutional issues to make that hard to do.
 
The biggest change is by eliminating suicides (about 50% of all US gun deaths) and justified shootings (zapping criminals), accidental gun fatalities were only 951 nationwide in 2011.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Interesting you are so dismissive at the avoidable tragedy of a child killing another child due to lax firearm laws, it isn't a big number so why bother with it... :doh

Oh I fully understand your pruning down the deaths to just one on another murder, but what you are ignoring is the the fallacy of 'an armed society is a polite one'. The difference between highly restricted states and give everyone a 'gun' states is .02 per 100,000. (and quite frankly the variance between each year can shift that back and forth)

The argument isn't less 'guns' means less murders- that is the strawman you are attempting to deflect the discussion with- no Sir the argument is less 'guns' means less deaths.

Arming everyone or making the poor citizen 'helpless' with no firearms doesn't seem to make much of a difference between Texas or Illinois in criminal activity- gangs will fight over turf and drugs, but lax 'gun' regulations do seem to promote more 'gun' related deaths.

FYI I think it is a bit dishonest to exclude suicide- it is still killing someone who isn't harming anyone else and against the law.
 
I've seen no evidence about rural areas having higher rates of gun ownership than urban ones. The evidence suggests otherwise.

However, I'm glad to see you reject the nonsensical "more guns = less crime" myth

He said "It is clear that a higher percentage of folks are armed in the rural area where I live than in a nearby city like Austin"

He was talking about where he lived...not in general.
 
Why eliminate suicides by gun? Are they not violent enough for you?

Because one is done willingly. The other is not. One is illegal. The other is not. The only reason those that are anti-gun use suicide is to make the problem seem bigger than it actually is.

The whole arguement of the anti-gun side is about criminals using guns to harm other people. That arguement by itself is a legitimate arguement. But as everyone knows the degree matters alot when it comes to the Rights outlined in the BoR. Which is why they want to use suicide statistics also because it beefs up the numbers and makes it seem more severe than it really is. Those that commit suicide are not harming anyone but themselves. They are not breaking any laws. Those two things right there takes them out of the equation for any legitimate claim to limit peoples 2nd Amendment Right.
 
FYI I think it is a bit dishonest to exclude suicide- it is still killing someone who isn't harming anyone else and against the law.

1: It is killing yourself and not harming anyone else. Not "killing someone". BIG difference.

2: There are no laws against suicide so no, it is not against the law.
 
Interesting you are so dismissive at the avoidable tragedy of a child killing another child due to lax firearm laws, it isn't a big number so why bother with it... :doh

Oh I fully understand your pruning down the deaths to just one on another murder, but what you are ignoring is the the fallacy of 'an armed society is a polite one'. The difference between highly restricted states and give everyone a 'gun' states is .02 per 100,000. (and quite frankly the variance between each year can shift that back and forth)

The argument isn't less 'guns' means less murders- that is the strawman you are attempting to deflect the discussion with- no Sir the argument is less 'guns' means less deaths.

Arming everyone or making the poor citizen 'helpless' with no firearms doesn't seem to make much of a difference between Texas or Illinois in criminal activity- gangs will fight over turf and drugs, but lax 'gun' regulations do seem to promote more 'gun' related deaths.

FYI I think it is a bit dishonest to exclude suicide- it is still killing someone who isn't harming anyone else and against the law.

Suicide is a self preventing crime as it has a ZERO recidivism rate and perp = victim in every case. I am not at all opposed to holding those criminally responsible for gun "accidents" if gross negligence can be proven, thus they would count as criminal gun deaths and not accidents.

It is silly to assert that criminal gangs would be deterred by gun bans, as these gangs make most of their money dealing in illegal drugs (also banned nationwide). Mexico has very strict gun and drug laws, yet has plenty of both. The police state required to enforce any ban is well beyond that which the public would be willing to tolerate, thus the failure of nearly all national attempts at "gun control".

The war on drugs "succeeds" only in briefly locking up morons (at high cost) that are either simply users or low level "dealers" in the supply chain. As long as there is demand, and huge profits to be made, the supply/distribution of recreational drugs will continue, so gangs will survive and maintain power primarily using that drug money.
 
Was he in a gun free zone? If so then why isn't he charged with that also? Since he wasn't then we can only assume that he was not in a gun free zone. And the sensitive place would be if he had been on the white house grounds. Which he wasn't.

I do admit that the first part..the..."It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" might apply. But then it is so open ended as to be meaningless because one could argue that it would apply in this situation and could argue that it wouldn't apply and both assertions would be correct. As such its worthless.

The quote I posted did not say that the govt can only limit the possession of guns in a GFZ. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the area around the White House to be a "sensitive" location.

I'd also like to point out that before he pulled the weapon out of his backpack, it was being concealed.
 
1: It is killing yourself and not harming anyone else. Not "killing someone". BIG difference.

2: There are no laws against suicide so no, it is not against the law.

You are correct there is no law against suicide, my bad. however it is still killing someone who is no threat or danger to any other person- the standard for justifiable killing. I see suicide by firearm as a firearm death that wasn't in self defense or defense of others.

As I pointed out to TWTT the statistical difference between a lax regulation state and a much higher restriction one is .02 per 100,000 even by reducing the deaths to just murder, and that teeny tiny difference can come and go as the economies and drug gangs ebb and flow.

Now since the reality is firearms cause all manner of deaths past murder including those victims in the discussion as the cemetery includes the bodies of those victims as well....

Just seems to make sense... oh FYI I own several firearms- no big collection but like I used to tell students I don't need a lot of hammers to build a house... :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom