Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...on-medical-pot


Fuck this state

One step forward, two steps back.

Patients who want to qualify for medical marijuana in Illinois would have to be fingerprinted for a background check and pay $150 a year — and give up their right to own a gun, state officials proposed Tuesday.

The plan outlines how adults who have any of 41 specified medical conditions, such as cancer, AIDS or complex regional pain syndrome, may apply to get a patient registry identification card to purchase medical pot.

The proposed rules are the first in a series of parameters expected to be outlined over the course of the year to govern how medical marijuana can be legally grown, sold and purchased. The Illinois Department of Public Health will take public comment on this set of rules until Feb. 7 and then submit them to a legislative panel for approval by the end of April....

Illinois is the 20th state to allow medical marijuana. The proposed rules may be seen at mcpp.illinois.gov.

[Tinykong]

We're discussing a 50 year trend. You're taking a time period less than half of that total and declaring that you're making a point. You aren't. I'd say I'm tired of your "schtick", but I don't think it's a schtick. I think you just have great difficulty understanding basic things, differences, and concepts.

There is no "50 year trend." You're making statements based on opinions about what a dead person "might say" today.

The 20 year trend is based on data. Do you understand the concept?

[Wildtree]

Tony doesn't really post in here.

Do we have to invite him to the party? lol

[Swampmoose]

The CDC creates crap data?

In this case yes. BMI is outdated and wrongly classifies healthy athletic individuals as overweight or worse.

[Wildtree]

There is no "50 year trend." You're making statements based on opinions about what a dead person "might say" today.

The 20 year trend is based on data. Do you understand the concept?

Wouldn't that also make a strong point for those who say, "abolish or change the 2nd amendment"? I mean.... How old is that?
How much context is the amendment given today, compared to the times of it's creation, which have been dramatically different to our today's times?

[hakujinbakasama]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...on-medical-pot


Fuck this state

One step forward, two steps back.

People really need to PAY WAY more attention to this bill/process. This is the Chicago way of getting their foot in the door. If they can justify Marijuana, which zero evidence to any claim, then they will have a stake put in which will allow for further medications. I don't mean to really start a slippery slope argument but this is a desired push already existing in the country.

"Are you on medications which effect your mental state at any point of time? Then hand over your rights." Thanks to Sandy Hook and other events this is an actual growing desire from many anti-gun supporters.

[PhaelixWW]

remember that 79% include legal intervention...

Why does legal intervention matter? LEOs are trained to keep shooting until the target is down for good. I'm sure, if anything, the proportion of non-fatal vs. fatal injuries in legal intervention shootings is much lower.

thing is, it doesn´t have to be the very same gun and still holds true, funny

Thing is, the homeowner might own a gun specifically because the area the home is in has a higher rate of crime than elsewhere, meaning that the likelihood of being shot at home is already higher, gun in the home or no gun in the home. Funny.

Why should Average Joe Citizen/Hunter Bob/John Q. Public have an assault style weapon? None! Those should only be in the hands of law enforcement and the military.

Tell us why assault-style weapons are more dangerous than other, non-assault-style weapons.

Fuck this state

One step forward, two steps back.

Not precisely news. Pot is completely illegal in the eyes of the federal government, whose form you fill out to buy a gun. Even if the state allows it, federal regulations make it a crime to own a gun if you use.

[NYC17]

There is no "50 year trend." You're making statements based on opinions about what a dead person "might say" today.

The 20 year trend is based on data. Do you understand the concept?

There's no 50 year trend? So trends can only occur on a 20 year basis? The previous 30 years don't exist?

Oh, Tiny, Tiny, Tiny...

[Aeluron Lightsong]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...on-medical-pot


Fuck this state

One step forward, two steps back.

Give up a right to own a gun? I can see this sorta but I've been against Marijuanna all my life but this is just...weird. At most background checks or extensive ones. No need to take a right away. Lulz...... I don't like guns or drugs but this is a very weird way to handle things.


#Illinoispoliticsftw

Wouldn't that also make a strong point for those who say, "abolish or change the 2nd amendment"? I mean.... How old is that?
How much context is the amendment given today, compared to the times of it's creation, which have been dramatically different to our today's times?

True to, course I can foresee a clever rebuttal.

Do we have to invite him to the party? lol

I'd rather invite Tili.

[Tinykong]

Wouldn't that also make a strong point for those who say, "abolish or change the 2nd amendment"? I mean.... How old is that?
How much context is the amendment given today, compared to the times of it's creation, which have been dramatically different to our today's times?

I'll find his research for him.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

"Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s."

So, firearm homicide rates are roughly the same today as they were 50 years ago. The population size has increased and so has firearm proliferation and ownership rates.

Firearm violence is down, contrary to the hysteria people are parroting on these forums.

There's no 50 year trend? So trends can only occur on a 20 year basis? The previous 30 years don't exist?

Oh, Tiny, Tiny, Tiny...

No, you've failed to provide any trends, just irrelevant opinions. I found your research for you, it's posted above. Spoiler alert: you're wrong.

[NYC17]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...on-medical-pot


Fuck this state

One step forward, two steps back.

What an odd tie-in. maybe they think medical marijuana is laced with some serious shit, like street weed;p

- - - Updated - - -

I'll find his research for him.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

"Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s."

So, firearm homicide rates are roughly the same today as they were 50 years ago. The population size has increased and so has firearm proliferation and ownership rates.

Firearm violence is down, contrary to the hysteria people are parroting on these forums.



No, you've failed to provide any trends, just irrelevant opinions. I found your research for you, it's posted above. Spoiler alert: you're wrong.

Homicides are clearly the only indicator of gun violence.

El oh El, as I believe you are known for saying...

[Cthulhu 2020]

I always hate when people use that "you are more likely to die from a gun with a gun in the home". It is such a loaded "fact". Of course you have a higher chance than someone without one simply because it is one more item the other person doesnt have in their home. People with pools are more likely to drown in a pool, electricians are more likely to be electrocuted. Doesnt mean you shouldnt have a pool or be an electrician.

And to the post a few pages back, dont feel like quoting it, yes, i was implying adding guns...into the hands of responsible, law abiding citizens...will fix the problem. Key words...responsible, law abiding citizen. It always does. Countless times a day even. Most without a shot ever being fired.

The statistic is that your gun is three times more likely to be used on you (by someone who takes it, a loved one, or just accidentally/intentionally shooting yourself) than it is against a home invader.

[Tinykong]

Homicides are clearly the only indicator of gun violence.

El oh El, as I believe you are known for saying...

Did you even read the source?

I don't think you did. Probably why you can't create any counter arguments other than snark.

Let's see some actual statistics or data to back up your claims. Or are you going to tell me that you're an expert, and your posts are therefore considered evidence?

[Wildtree]

I'll find his research for him.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

"Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s."

So, firearm homicide rates are roughly the same today as they were 50 years ago. The population size has increased and so has firearm proliferation and ownership rates.

Firearm violence is down, contrary to the hysteria people are parroting on these forums.

Okay, from a glimpse at the stat graphs.. The peak was apparently in the 1930s, the times of the mafia and the gang wars. That does make sense to me, since they've mowed people down by the masses.
Now for a closer look, I give you credit for your stance by pointing out stats that contribute to your stance, and they appear to be credible source as well.
Yet still, despite of that, I notice an increase of the crime overall since 3 years now.
I also think how rational gun regulation is the key to not only ensure the stats to stay low, but to bring them even more down...

[Laize]

You mean the groups that won because Johnson didn't want to go all out and ignore international law and attack their supply lines in Laos / Cambodia?

Yeah fuck the POTUS... who did he think he was, listening to his constituents like that? You'd almost think he was an elected official or something.

[lockedout]

False assertion that they're is intent to disar...ah fuck it. Just read the god damn thread instead of lecturing about what needs to be done.

There is clear intent to disarm the public. Look at the measures being taken. Highest rate of deaths from a firearm is the handgun, ok lets ban rifles and magazines with higher than 10 rounds.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah fuck the POTUS... who did he think he was, listening to his constituents like that? You'd almost think he was an elected official or something.

I just said why they won. Not that I would have wanted anything different. Chill....

[Tinykong]

Okay, from a glimpse at the stat graphs.. The peak was apparently in the 1930s, the times of the mafia and the gang wars. That does make sense to me, since they've mowed people down by the masses.
Now for a closer look, I give you credit for your stance by pointing out stats that contribute to your stance, and they appear to be credible source as well.
Yet still, despite of that, I notice an increase of the crime overall since 3 years now.
I also think how rational gun regulation is the key to not only ensure the stats to stay low, but to bring them even more down...

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/stu...icidev9311.pdf


Overall firearm violence rates are down over 20 years as well, not just homicides. These studies have been discussed before in this thread.

[NYC17]

Did you even read the source?

I don't think you did. Probably why you can't create any counter arguments other than snark.

I was hoping you'd actually read your source and notice that they so effortlessly switch between overall gun violence and gun homicide rates. Such as, Gun violence peaking and then dropping, but leveling off...not going below or equal to 1960 levels. The drop is what leveled off. What went EQUAL to 1960 level was the gun HOMICIDE rate, not overall gun violence.

The only thing that study says about gun violence is that it's lower than in the mid 1990's. Congratulations for not reading your source completely. Also, this is the part where you start talking about goal posts or some such, because you didn't understand what the discussion encompassed in the first place.

[Tinykong]

There is clear intent to disarm the public. Look at the measures being taken. Highest rate of deaths from a firearm is the handgun, ok lets ban rifles and magazines with higher than 10 rounds.

That is a direct response to ignorant public outcry over Newtown. The crying over that has long since subsided, and all the smart politicians have unhitched their wagons from it.