white males are generally in charge of the government and are largest gun owners, not sure why that group would shot the hand that feeds them

If the left doesn't believe this, they are doing a shitty job of articulating it.

Give me quotes from people with power saying they want to ban all guns. If it's so prevalent it should be easy for you.

They can't and don't want to ban all guns. They do want to restrict citizens access to them and the biggest thing in their way is the 2nd amendment. This is a long-term siege, not a quick assault.


So if we are gonna "just try something" but we won't address the actual criminals, what's left? The anti-criminal. What's protecting them? Just that piece of paper called The Constitution mostly. Who's defending? The NRA, right-wingers, mostly.

Stop going after me and get your political leaders back into the fight against gun violence at the source and start picking up criminals off the street and keep them off the street. That's trying. What's stopping that? Voter bloc's and special interest groups on the left...not guns.

So nobody ever says it, but you know that the left wants to ban all guns.

Care to share the Powerball numbers for Wednesday?

I think Edward has the answer as to why I make this generalization.

Yes. I am completely fine if someone wants to keep guns in their home for protection. I don't think it's necessarily needed in all cases, but that's your call.

What I would like is to step away from what I think is rhetoric meant to scare that is supported by the NRA to yes, sell more guns and ammo. Oh, and by politicians to keep getting elected. Of course it's brilliant, it's been working, and I'm not sure you can logistically fight it. "The left is coming for more guns - the only way to make sure this doesn't happen is to buy more guns!" Ok, but the left hasn't ever said that and hasn't made any headway in doing this. "Yes, that's because we've fought them at every step, and have driven them back and defied them by buying more guns!" They've also moved the threat bar. It's not that someone is going to invade your home, or mug you on the street. Society is going to collapse!

I am just not behind everyone having guns everywhere. I don't feel safer knowing that on the street, more people are armed. Why? Because a lot of people are stupid, a lot of people make bad decisions, and a lot of people can't control their tempers. It's an invitation for more people to fuck up. So, keep that to your own home, or at a range, or on a range, or in the woods. Not in Walmart, or Applebees, or AMC.

"back into the fight"? What are you referencing?

Probably inaccurate generalization. There are plenty of other non-South states with high gun ownership.

That's true, there are. PA is one. Your rural farm/hunting types.

edit: well, maybe not quite as high as I thought, but certainly higher than some.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-o...y-state-2015-7

I mean, if you lived in New York, and you look at the above graphic and then this graphic, would you be inclined to think "hey, we need to be more like Alabama?"

Here's where Americans are most likely to die from gun shots - Business Insider

I don't for one second believe that if a city the size of New York City was located in the South that it would somehow be safer. New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami...etc.

But when you target The South, you aren't targeting New Orleans folks, Atlanta folks, or Miami folks (or even Birmingham, AL). You are pretty constantly articulating "y'all" in the country.

Come on, you can say it Dutch. I'm not targeting black or hispanic folks.

Fine. What is the typical greeting in Montana, or Wyoming? Maybe I should go back and see how Sarah addresses her crowds in Alaska.

And...are you implying there are no blacks in NYC? I mean, I know they don't show any on Girls, but I think there are some there. How can it be that they aren't shooting everybody?

(Also, I think I've heard a few "y'alls" coming from Ben. Pretty sure he's black.)

I'm keeping it political on purpose. We can target urban vs rural...Democrat vs Republican with some level of safety.


This is keeping it racial.

Interestingly, you can target by race too.

Race, Education, Gender Differences on Gun Control vs. Gun Rights | Pew Research Center




One group seems to argue against gun control more than the others.

I lived for years in both Chicago and England and you're just wrong on both counts.

The shootings in Chicago are primarily about the drug war and are on the street because that's where gangs fight over their turf.

Criminals in England, just like elsewhere, prefer owners not to be at home because it makes robbing things easier.

I was going to let that statement slide because it was so fucking ludicrous, but yeah pretty much.

Fair, I can see how it sounds wrong.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa...g-Ch3-2003.pdf

I have seen reference to it before, but didn't have a source. I just happened to stumble on this which provides some evidence that it may not be completely fabricated info.

Page 80 gives reference to "hot" burglaries (where residents are home) by nations where data was available, but unfortunately this isn't something that is tracked regularly so they only had data available when a study was done.

Key highlight for burglaries where residents were home

1982-1988 - UK - 43%
1977 - Netherlands - 48%
1976 - USA - 9%

1999 there was some comparable study between USA and UK...

US - 20-28%
UK - 46%

Who knows, I don't defend any of the numbers, but it passes the common sense factor for me since I am a proponent of multiple layers of home defense, including firearms as a last resort.

Here's the thing I don't get about the gun stuff.

We have movies like Tombstone where the the Earps try and enact gun control as a means to gain control over a town that has been under the oppressive thumb of a band of outlaws. In that process they stand tall, suffer retribution and ultimately go on their own path of violence until they prevail.

It's not a new thing this idea that we do these things in the name of public safety. I don't remember the Clanton's screaming about the second amendment. I realize that I'm being a little tongue in cheek, and that it's a fictional take on real people, but the basic facts remain.

Generally we identify with the Earps and Doc, but when did the real American PatriotsTM turn into the Clantons?

I mean, I'm not out to collect guns from everyone. I think there are plenty of things we can do that don't infringe on the second amendment though. See I think if the framers of the constitution had cars, planes or any modern technology and they included it in there you'd have an argument, but a large part of that is that guns were a part of society then. Just because they were around doesn't make them holy.

We regulate tons of stuff and still have access to it with fairly little heartache. There's no reason that common sense can't dictate smart moves going forward.

Having said all of that. It's not really about the guns. It's not. It's about violence. Violence is going to find a way to happen. Sometimes we need guns. However, I'm not comfortable walking into Target or WalMart with people who openly carry. It's a massive rabbit hole. We've seen the police in Ohio blow a kid away in a park and a guy away in a WalMart. Neither of whom were threatening anyone. Ohio is an open carry state. Why did this end up happening then?

The second part of this is that guns give people power. This whole battle is over power. Who is going to have the power? Citizens need some manner of power, but society cannot function without law enforcement having power too. Law enforcement is an arm of government. Law abiding citizens should be able to have that power too, but not the bad guys. The fact of the matter is that many law abiding citizens are dicks. Dicks with guns have the power to be massive dicks and are wild, unstable, abusive, and can ruin entire segments of society with their dickishness. Someone has to have the power to decide who is a dick and who isn't. You cannot count on people to self regulate. It's just not possible. Soo. Someone has to do it and that falls to the government.

I just want each side to articulate what the real problems and real issues are without immediately resorting name calling and threats. I'm all for smart gun ownership. Let people go hunt, shoot at the range, hone their skills, but there has to be a line where society can still freely function and where dicks don't have guns.

Fair enough. I'd have to read more about the study - those numbers sound absolutely crazy to me, but all I have are my anecdotes and perceptions from living there for the first 25 years of my life.

Some important differences listed the paper: European respondents who did not know where they were at the time of the burglary weren't included whereas Americans who didn't know where they were at the time (28%) were; people in America are about 3 times as likely to live in a free-standing home (so in Europe it's much harder tell from outside the building whether the target is in fact home), and penalties for any kind of burglary in America are much more severe (so if you're going to do it you'd need to be that much more sure beforehand you aren't going to get caught).

Yeah, power is most certainly a part of this. And, whose power you trust. The Black Panthers armed themselves - legally - when they didn't trust the cops and thought they were abusing their power. Those in power at the time didn't exactly like that, so they lobbied to pass the Mulford Act. No more walking around with guns in California.

We've had arguments here regarding police shootings, and many have sided with authority - obey and you won't be shot. Brandish a gun and you certainly will be because a cop's (power) safety is sacrosanct. Simple! But when it comes to the Federal gov't - or rather, Obama's Federal gov't - you're damned right we have the right to a gun, and you'd better not try to infringe upon that or we'll fight back. Violently, if need be.

Why is it increasingly a worry? Because they feel their position of power is slipping away. And they fear the new powers are gonna be dicks.

Nol,

Thanks, Nol, I put that disclaimer in my post already. I wanted to find something quick because I was basically being called a liar. The link helps support that I didn't just pull this data out of thin air versus the point or reliance of the said data.

I wish there was reliable data to back it up.

I did read the last couple of weeks of Chicago homicide statistics and the ratio was probably 10-1 street vs home...with the lions share going to young black males since we opened up that can of worms. Not sure if cops did any of the shooting either, FWIW.

EDIT: Good to see you here battling again, Nol, thought you forgot about us.

I'm sorry, kudos for providing a study but even if that study is immaculately prepared and completely accurate it still wouldn't remotely prove the statement "I believe it's England where home invaders prefer the owners to be home so they can get to the "gold and silver" easier"

That's still a patently false statement as far as I'm concerned, and unless you can find a study where they actually interviewed people who broke into homes and asked them whether they knew the people were home and their motivations for doing so, your study really doesn't say anything.

I would also add that security and surveillance systems seem to be (another anecdotal statement I am afraid) much more common in the US - so I would guess the number of potential burglars who never got inside the home because they were stopped by that layer of security is likely way higher in the US

In the context of statistics/science, misrepresenting research by omitting findings that do not agree with the conclusion you are trying to make is more or less the same as outright fabrication.

I wouldn't suggest it in a court of law without citing sources. I'm actually not at work right now, so consider this a casual conversation amongst friends.

Absolutely, and an interesting one at that

Because we have more Useful Idiots than we've ever seen.

And the Supremes so magnificently bungled that particular example, I have no reason at all to think they won't do likewise. They seem determined to destroy anything good or rational, they're a body of evil afaic.

Trust me, it's the drug war.

A while ago, and I'm damned if I can find it, but I either read an article or listened to a podcast that pointed out that not only is Chicago the nation's hub for all kinds of freight, it's the nation's hub for drug transhipment (i.e. another kind of freight).

So there's a lot of cartel money and muscle in the area to move product and do distribution, and that all ends up filtering down (hey, trickle-down! Reagan wasn't wrong!) to the street, essentially, with gangs providing security, distribution, sales, etc....

With so much money at stake, and such easy access to guns (from the cartels, but also otherwise), it's created an open warfare zone on the south and west sides of the city.


It's funny, because I had the exact opposite experience when I moved to the UK from the US in that I saw a lot more security systems, even in fairly modest apartments/flats.

I know the stats Dutch posted have been beaten to death, but anecdotally I found that people in the UK are also home a lot more often than in the US. Neighbors are also physically closer (i.e. a lot of terraced housing), so I'd expect that would contribute to the "hot" vs. "cold" incidences.

Watching the State of the Union now. Biden and Ryan are in the background and I find myself strangely watching them instead of Obama.

Ryan is trying so hard with his poker face.

BTW, am I alone in finding the style of this speech, a little weird?

The question is how does he do in the swing states against Bernie or Clinton.

Seems like a typical Obama speech to me. What do you think is off by it?

I was trying to figure out what it would have taken for me to actually watch this dark comedy & then it hit me:

If Vince McMahon had hosted AND if there'd been a steel cage surrounding the podium then ... maybe.

The cancer part with/for Biden was good. Got bi-partisan support there.

Ann Coulter not a fan of Nikki Haley-says Trump should deport her.

Ann Coulter says Trump should deport Nikki Haley - NY Daily News

I just read Nikki Haley's response. It was very, very good even if I don't agree with some of it. I didn't see her deliver it, so I don't know if she was a good public speaker, but she has some nation wide promise if she was.

President Obama's speech was just fantastic. One of the best he's given, especially the last 10 or so minutes.

Two thoughts as I was watching her

1) She had a funny lip thing going (it may just have been me though)
2) She was saying things that I thought contradicted the GOP candidates messaging ... but reading some feedback today would indicate she is GOP establishment vs not. I wonder who vetted the speech for her?

Well, she was obviously intending to contradict Trump's vitriol. She's definitely establishment.

This I put generally down to the fact that in England working out if someone is home is near impossible - we use our feet and public transport far more than people in much of America so a car is generally in the driveway continually, making it hard to predict if someone is home or not unless you've seriously cased a house (and most buglaries I believe are far from 'planned' professionally).

Its worth realizing also that most English home owners are also far more likely to put up a fight against a burglar because they expect they won't be packing a gun either ... whatever escalation might occur is normally non-fatal for both parties (and in my limited experience normally involved the thief making an abrupt exit).

Yeah, which made it even more amusing to read moments ago where she would be willing to consider a VP slot.

Umm ... who is going to win the nomination that would be stupid enough to ask her?

Ah, I remember when she was a Tea Party darling. Ever rightward, Republicans!

Once she touched the flag, she revealed herself for the fraudulent liberal she is.

She's nothing more than an eventual grave to piss on afaic.

You mean the confederate flag?

Was that the thing where she had it taken down? (Sorry, I really haven't been paying attention to that episode.)

She managed to negotiate a non-violent solution to the confederate flag protests in South Carolina that occurred after a church shooting.

Extreme Liberals don't like it because she showed how government can and would listen and respond to protests that did not need to rise to the level of violence and riots. See Nikki Haley's State of the Union response bashed Trump — and racial justice activists - Vox

Extreme Conservatives don't like it because she had the flag removed from the statehouse grounds.

Basically, a good compromise leaves both sides upset. She managed that situation amazingly.

I guess this is what Jon's talking about (more generally about Haley): Nikki Haley’s State of the Union Response Provokes Right-Wing Backlash | Vanity Fair

If you equate capitulation with "managing".

There isn't a pit deep enough nor a fire hot enough for that bitch.

Serious question, Jon: are you more angry than you were 10 years ago? Because it kinda seems like it.

This could go in any number of threads. I'll stick it here: Democrats are in more trouble than they think. And changing demographics won’t save them. - Vox

I am disheartened by how many I see on the left spouting versions of "Brown people have lots of kids, so we will be fine." Republicans seem intent on working to win elections. Democrats seem content to smugly figure that they are right and that enough voters will figure that out eventually.