Not taking sides on this but...

[BikerDude]

Study links gun laws and lower gun mortality

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/guns-laws-mortality/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

[DigitalBuddha]

Study links gun laws and lower gun mortality

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/guns-laws-mortality/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Interesting article; but I would bring up that the fact that the four cities with the highest murder rates (including with the use of firearms) also have the strictest gun control laws...Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Detroit. These cities are called "murder capitals" along with being "gun control capitals."

Also, that CNN story is talking about "mortality rates," which clouds up the issue (something CNN is well known for)........

"(CNN) -- States with the most gun laws experienced a lower overall mortality rate from firearms than did states with the fewest laws, researchers in Boston reported in a study published Wednesday"

Their "mortality rate" could be low (and probably is) in the states being referred to in the CNN story for a lot more reasons than mere "gun control." It looks to me that CNN is deliberately confusing "mortality rate" with "murder rate." The two are not the same.

Also, I offer this........

The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it won't ever be an issue unless a tyrannical government takes it away from the People." ~ Thomas Jefferson

As always IMHO

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

The problem with strict gun law cities is that they are not islands, guns come in from outside the city making the correlation moot.

Constitutionally we can not prohibit weapons, but we can regulate them, SCOTUS US v Miller. Hand guns and sporting rifles are protected, but that does not mean all types of weaponry are. you can not purchase and use high explosives with out abiding by extensive regulation, even though they are arms.

That and firearms that civilians have access to today are useless against a modern military, especially the US. In Afghanistan and Iraq our boys shrug off small arms fire like gnats. The IED and mortar are the weapons of choice and they the only effective ones against US troops.

I always defer to the 31st verse of the Tao, weapons are detestable, the tools of violence and death, they are loathsome to all beings, even when they must be accepted or employed. I accept there is a place for them, but I don't have to like it. For me knowledge and courage are the tools of anti tyranny, guns are the tools of tyranny. How do we know we are not arming the next David Koresch, Kony, Pol Pot, Bin Laden or Tim McVeigh? We don't know, but we probably are. It is the groups crying that they need guns to defend against government that scare me, KKK, Neo-Naxis and right wing Dominionists. It wont be the good guys using guns to change things, it will be dark forces tha want us to bow to their god who will bring the most guns and violence to the party.

That said, every liberal and progressive should keep a rifle (a lever action carbine is enough) so they are ready to fulfill the other purpose of the 2nd, to help the government repel these insurgent groups. As it was intended.

[BikerDude]

I'm typically an advocate for gun rights but the NRA stripe of logic has gone off the deep end IMO.
I simply believe that background checks are a no brainer.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit gun ownership to people without felonies and without a history of mental illness.
I find that perfectly reasonable.
The NRA on one hand will tell us that we should simply enforce the existing laws but then fight background checks at every turn.
As far as I'm concerned that is an absurd position and it really lifts the veil on an agenda.
You can't have sensible gun laws without background checks.

[DigitalBuddha]

The problem with strict gun law cities is that they are not islands, guns come in from outside the city making the correlation moot.

Constitutionally we can not prohibit weapons, but we can regulate them, SCOTUS US v Miller. Hand guns and sporting rifles are protected, but that does not mean all types of weaponry are. you can not purchase and use high explosives with out abiding by extensive regulation, even though they are arms.

That and firearms that civilians have access to today are useless against a modern military, especially the US. In Afghanistan and Iraq our boys shrug off small arms fire like gnats. The IED and mortar are the weapons of choice and they the only effective ones against US troops.

I always defer to the 31st verse of the Tao, weapons are detestable, the tools of violence and death, they are loathsome to all beings, even when they must be accepted or employed. I accept there is a place for them, but I don't have to like it. For me knowledge and courage are the tools of anti tyranny, guns are the tools of tyranny. How do we know we are not arming the next David Koresch, Kony, Pol Pot, Bin Laden or Tim McVeigh? We don't know, but we probably are. It is the groups crying that they need guns to defend against government that scare me, KKK, Neo-Naxis and right wing Dominionists. It wont be the good guys using guns to change things, it will be dark forces tha want us to bow to their god who will bring the most guns and violence to the party.

That said, every liberal and progressive should keep a rifle (a lever action carbine is enough) so they are ready to fulfill the other purpose of the 2nd, to help the government repel these insurgent groups. As it was intended.

Well said, Rev. Would like to make a comment on one of your comments........

"That and firearms that civilians have access to today are useless against a modern military, especially the US. In Afghanistan and Iraq our boys shrug off small arms fire like gnats. The IED and mortar are the weapons of choice and they the only effective ones against US troops. "

That is probably true, civilians alone would stand little chance, even with our large numbers in the United States, fighting against the US military. But as in the days of our Civil War; more or less, half would side with one faction, the rest with the other. As it was in 1862 to 1865, it would be factions of the military with civilians involved as militia versus opposing the other side in circumstances simulacra. My biggest concern is that, in the case of civil war, it would break up into possible multiple factions.

[BikerDude]

The problem with strict gun law cities is that they are not islands, guns come in from outside the city making the correlation moot.

Constitutionally we can not prohibit weapons, but we can regulate them, SCOTUS US v Miller. Hand guns and sporting rifles are protected, but that does not mean all types of weaponry are. you can not purchase and use high explosives with out abiding by extensive regulation, even though they are arms.

That and firearms that civilians have access to today are useless against a modern military, especially the US. In Afghanistan and Iraq our boys shrug off small arms fire like gnats. The IED and mortar are the weapons of choice and they the only effective ones against US troops.

I always defer to the 31st verse of the Tao, weapons are detestable, the tools of violence and death, they are loathsome to all beings, even when they must be accepted or employed. I accept there is a place for them, but I don't have to like it. For me knowledge and courage are the tools of anti tyranny, guns are the tools of tyranny. How do we know we are not arming the next David Koresch, Kony, Pol Pot, Bin Laden or Tim McVeigh? We don't know, but we probably are. It is the groups crying that they need guns to defend against government that scare me, KKK, Neo-Naxis and right wing Dominionists. It wont be the good guys using guns to change things, it will be dark forces tha want us to bow to their god who will bring the most guns and violence to the party.

That said, every liberal and progressive should keep a rifle (a lever action carbine is enough) so they are ready to fulfill the other purpose of the 2nd, to help the government repel these insurgent groups. As it was intended.

Well said, Rev. Would like to make a comment on one of your comments........

"That and firearms that civilians have access to today are useless against a modern military, especially the US. In Afghanistan and Iraq our boys shrug off small arms fire like gnats. The IED and mortar are the weapons of choice and they the only effective ones against US troops. "

That is probably true, civilians alone would stand little chance, even with our large numbers in the United States, fighting against the US military. But as in the days of our Civil War; more or less, half would side with one faction, the rest with the other. As it was in 1862 to 1865, it would be factions of the military with civilians involved as militia versus opposing the other side in circumstances simulacra. My biggest concern is that, in the case of civil war, it would break up into possible multiple factions.

Technology tips the scales.
Washington controls the military technology.
They'd always have an immediate advantage.
If we had the civil war today and all of the military in the South supported the south then first thing to happen would be that all the planes and missiles and crap they had would be useless. They'd be immediately destroyed.
Technology dude. It's like Nukes.
Basically unless you have the launch codes they are a corn silo.
Same with most other stuff.
Fighter jets as useful as roadblocks.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

That's when the initial outbreak of dissent is the most important. Initially you would want to begin unarmed, to attract the sympathy of the military. They are not going to side with those taking shots at them, they will rise to protect the vulnerable, not to join with the aggressors. At least the type I would want to fight side by side with would. It was the movement turning violent, at the DMC in Chicago that killed the Hippie, not their ethos. The civil rights movement was won by the meek, it got its public support because they were unarmed even in the face of oppression.

If battle is inevitable, Dude forbid, then there will be adequate time and opportunity to up arm, that and to remember chemistry class. What we want is Ganhis/MLKs and Lao Tsus, with military protection, ultimately. Pussies leading the way, with dicks to protect them from assholes who want to shit on everything(yeah,
I really dig the Team America analogy).

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

If there is any rational reason for open warfare to effect change in this nation, then it is already too late, the plane has crashed into the mountain.  As bad as things are, and with all the problems we have, it would be a lot worse if we turned our home into a battlefield. IU have lived in a war zone, it sux, screw that. This cold civil war we are waging is the best answer, it is the Tsun Tsu answer, take this bitch whole, not after we burn it to the ground.

People need to pay attention, not clean their guns, and we are winning, progress is slow, but we're in it for the long haul. Humanity has never been as peaceful as it is now, it has never had it as good as we have it now, we just need to keep pressing on. Right now internet access and freedom of information are our greatest weapons against darkness and tyranny.

[BikerDude]

That's when the initial outbreak of dissent is the most important. Initially you would want to begin unarmed, to attract the sympathy of the military. They are not going to side with those taking shots at them, they will rise to protect the vulnerable, not to join with the aggressors. At least the type I would want to fight side by side with would. It was the movement turning violent, at the DMC in Chicago that killed the Hippie, not their ethos. The civil rights movement was won by the meek, it got its public support because they were unarmed even in the face of oppression.

If battle is inevitable, Dude forbid, then there will be adequate time and opportunity to up arm, that and to remember chemistry class. What we want is Ganhis/MLKs and Lao Tsus, with military protection, ultimately. Pussies leading the way, with dicks to protect them from assholes who want to shit on everything(yeah,
I really dig the Team America analogy).

The battle is not inevitable.
In fact it's unlikely.
The bullshit that they use to push people's buttons are all about taking sides and inflaming people as a means to an end. When they bang the drum about the government wanting to take away your guns it is because they are in the business of guns. It's business. It's about membership.

[BikerDude]

If there is any rational reason for open warfare to effect change in this nation, then it is already too late, the plane has crashed into the mountain.  As bad as things are, and with all the problems we have, it would be a lot worse if we turned our home into a battlefield. IU have lived in a war zone, it sux, screw that. This cold civil war we are waging is the best answer, it is the Tsun Tsu answer, take this bitch whole, not after we burn it to the ground.

People need to pay attention, not clean their guns, and we are winning, progress is slow, but we're in it for the long haul. Humanity has never been as peaceful as it is now, it has never had it as good as we have it now, we just need to keep pressing on. Right now internet access and freedom of information are our greatest weapons against darkness and tyranny.

And most of the perceived reasons are lies. Most of what inflames the gun nuts is pure fiction.
They have systematically manufactured an alternate reality that has no relation to the real world.

[Stever]

Nope,your not taking sides at all
relax,smoke a joint,get drunk,go bowling-everything is fine.
Debate it,talk about it,and make sure you dont get really involved in anything.
Thats the way of the "dude".

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Whelp, like most things Dudeism has its contradictions, we are at once taking it easy not giving a fuck, and, standing up to aggression. I guess the Dudeist ideal is a world where there is no aggression left to stand up to, so we can all kick back and do a J in peace.

Just for fun, one of my favorite lines to use in a gun debate is "I've been to many mass stonings (J sessions) they are quite enjoyable, unlike mass shootings". Any reangement that works for the discussion at hand.

[BikerDude]

Nope,your not taking sides at all
relax,smoke a joint,get drunk,go bowling-everything is fine.
Debate it,talk about it,and make sure you dont get really involved in anything.
Thats the way of the "dude".

Yeah point taken.
But I'm not taking sides in the value of the article. (Effect of the amount of gun laws on the number of gun fatalities)
That was my point.

But this whole issue is just another instance where I'm amazed at how easily led people are by "consumerism" or advocacy or just plain fanaticism.
For instance, an organization advocates a clearly self serving position and people are so easily led down the primrose path.
How surprising is it that an organization (the NRA) who's entire mission is protecting people gun rights overstates the threat to people's gun rights. Cmon! I mean I would expect a 5 year old to see the inherent conflict there. They benefit by making people feel like any day someone is coming for their guns and we are being overrun by armies of "godless heathens". And of course the solution is to stick together and join the NRA and buy more guns.
Same old sort of sales pitch and it always works flawlessly as long as somebody provides a scapegoat. I'm convinced it's in our DNA. We are tribal and we love nothing better than to organize against a perceived threat. Trouble is it makes people dig a hole in their backyard and fill it with bottled water, snickers bars and crates of guns and ammo waiting for the big crackdown. And most importantly it makes any sensible discussion pretty much impossible. As usual. And this is just one example.
It's funny but sad really. We live in a polarized world. People derive their identities from an endless cycle of punditry and soundbites. A giant oversimplification. Multiple "big lies".
And in the large picture that is exactly the sort of thing that the 24 hour cable new cycle has brought us.
Corporate America, or whatever interest has the where with all to get the spotlight pushing an agenda and mobilizing an army of morons ready to do battle against fictional bad guys.

"...it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
by:
Hermann Goering
(1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [G?ring]
Date:
April 18, 1946
Source:   
Nuremberg Diary (Farrar, Straus & Co 1947), by Gustave Gilbert (an Allied appointed psychologist), who visited daily with Goering and his cronies in their cells, afterwards making notes and ultimately writing the book about these conversations.

[Hominid]

I may just be wondering into the middle of a movie here, but ... no one thinks anymore, in this western world. That's why the Asians are going to end up running this planet. Economic prowess and intellect is all it takes.

[DigitalBuddha]

I may just be wondering into the middle of a movie here, but ... no one thinks anymore, in this western world. That's why the Asians are going to end up running this planet. Economic prowess and intellect is all it takes.

Maybe TOO much "is this, what day is this?"