Justjim75 said:In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
Are you at all involved at Rivian or in Illinois?
No, I am in Alaska and involved in making analogies sometimes?
Justjim75 said:In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
Are you at all involved at Rivian or in Illinois?
No, I am in Alaska and involved in making analogies sometimes?
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
Lol, I had passed by Rivian Blvd or whatever the name is and 2 semis full of new trucks about 5 min before I read your post. Wonder how they would handle Alaska in the winter? I don't hate them.
Just an interesting reminder. History isn't always what you think it was. Gun bans were very prevalent across the west in towns and cities. It reduced violence. Looks like we will have to relearn this lesson.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
Wait. You are serious?
This is AMERICA! We delete history and rewrite it to fit our agenda AS NEEDED. None of this learn from History crap. We create history EVERY DAY, even if it's inaccurate.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
That only worked because the bad guys were unarmed too. Try that in Atlanta
Fueled by Caffeine said:Just an interesting reminder. History isn't always what you think it was. Gun bans were very prevalent across the west in towns and cities. It reduced violence. Looks like we will have to relearn this lesson.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
Watch the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven" for an interesting example.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Note: A gun ban is waay different than gun control legislation.
Forget it. Absolutely NEVER will happen.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
As long as we are cherry picking articles and history, we may also want to consider Kennesaw GA (where gun ownership is REQUIRED by law)
Hard to say if it's related or not, but their violent crime statistics are really low.
Regardless, a gun BAN is a complete non-starter.
SV reX said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
As long as we are cherry picking articles and history, we may also want to consider Kennesaw GA (where gun ownership is REQUIRED by law)
Hard to say if it's related or not, but their violent crime statistics are really low.
Regardless, a gun BAN is a complete non-starter.
If we're going to cherry pick Kennesaw specifically, we would be remiss to ignore Morton Grove, IL.
The Kennesaw law (which was not and is not enforced) was put in place as a reaction to the Morton Grove ban on HANDguns - which also was not enforced prior to the SC ruling in DC vs Heller, when the village board voted to remove the ban in 2008. It is noteworthy that in a case specifically against Morton Grove, an appellate court (or State Supreme Court? I can't remember) upheld the ban, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
EDIT: Sources
So the mandatory gun ownership and carrying place is less safe. Who would have thunk?
In reply to mtn :
WooHoo! Isn't cherry picking fun??
dumb game
In reply to SV reX :
So if you're going to play it, make sure you play both sides. To me it is disingenuous not to.
In reply to mtn :
Morton Grove dropped it's handgun ban in 2008.
Your info is irrelevant.
The "having more guns is safer" argument, to me, seems to be semi-defeated by the concept that although there are heavily armed towns that are very safe, there are also inner city areas that are what might be call heavily armed, and they are FAR from safe.
To me at least, this both speaks to the concept that more guns = safer is a bit silly AND also speaks to the fact that it's far more important WHO is carrying the guns, then how many are carrying.
Thought experiment (overly simplistic I know): Would you rather live in a town that is generally described as having a lot of reasonable people, or a town with a lot of people carrying guns?
In reply to aircooled :
I agree.
Just to clarify, I was not making any suggestion that "having more guns is safer". I was pretty clear that was hard to claim.
I was commenting on journalistic bias, and recognizing that a commentary on "history" from an art magazine could also have other aspects that were not considered.
I wasn't intending show statistical data.
The history of Kennesaw showed a significant DROP in crime at the same time that the requirement for gun ownership went into effect.
Related? Who knows. Both are journalistic speculation, without mathematical facts.
SV reX said:
The history of Kennesaw showed a significant DROP in crime at the same time that the requirement for gun ownership went into effect.
Related? Who knows. Both are journalistic speculation, without mathematical facts.
It's 100% journalistic speculation. As somebody who lived in Kennesaw growing up, it was just a purely symbolic gesture. Nobody was forced to buy or own guns, most people just had a ton of guns already. Back then, Kennesaw was a very sleepy suburb with nothing going on, now it's basically metro Atlanta and a big college town (KSU CJ grad -Go Owls). Any crime stat that went up or down because of that "announcement" had nothing to do with that law. Anybody that actually knows Kennesaw especailly back then knows why property crimes were low. It's a civil war history town and was semi-rural Georgia back then. Lots of "Dent Myers" types back then.
I do still have this t shirt though (mine doesn't have the stars and bars though):
If your country doesn't want to get raped and pillaged it should have a means to defend itself, no? With no weapons it is defenseless against those that want to do it harm. So if the best defense for a country is better "guns" than the bad guys, why shouldn't it apply to all humans? We are already so hamstringed by the ATFs rules on what we can own that the bad guys all have better stuff. Look up Glock switch
The coy reference to ask people to look up switches plays into the fear pushed by the gun manufacturer lobby and the NRA. The data dosent prove your safer with guns but people are so afraid they buy this E36 M3 out of them. Kinda like a fear of flying. So many people I know won't fly due to fear, but statistically your safer than driving.
If we can find data thst shows we are all safer carrying. I'll do it. But I don't see it.
If we make possession of a firearm mandatory in a large federal prison, it's probably not going to make that community any safer. Point is, an armed populace is a good thing when the vast majority of citizens have love of country, respect for the law, and respect for each other. Not to mention respect for themselves. I would argue that we are lacking most of these things in a significant percentage of our citizens, with predictable results.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
I agree with you.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Sure, flying is statistically very safe, but if you tell that to the guy that's in a plane with two engines on fire in a nose dive and about to be a hole in the ground, he's not going to feel any better about it.
Statistically, people with guns are probably as likely to shoot themselves in the foot as use the weapon to defend themselves. That doesn't mean anything to the armed father defending his family in a carjacking scenario.
Some people find comfort in data. Others in a concealed pistol, loaded and ready to go.
Edit: I agree it's a conundrum. Lots of crime, people buy guns to feel safe. Make crime disappear and you remove "some" of the incentive to buy guns. I don't think the number of guns on the streets is a major determinant of how much crime you'll have. The number of criminals on the streets IS a major determinant of how much crime you'll have. We don't have a gun problem, we have a criminal justice problem.
I would agree that the primary source of the issue is criminal justice (and other society related issues, such as mental health etc), but it's hard not to see how the prevalence of guns doesn't makes that problems more pronounced. As mentioned before, guns are a force multiplier, which can be good (grandma) or bad (thug), but when the general situation is not good, the result is certainly to be bad.
BTW - making firearm possession in prisons (would not want to be a guard, but you wouldn't really need them), could very much make communities safer. A good percentage of the prisoners would kill each other... you would just need to figure out how to keep the ones that are left in there!
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Just an interesting reminder. History isn't always what you think it was. Gun bans were very prevalent across the west in towns and cities. It reduced violence. Looks like we will have to relearn this lesson.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
Vigilante justice was also big in the old west. If we had mobs conducting public hangings of suspected criminals, we'd likely have less crime now, and less violence.
Which illustrates why you need to look at the big picture, not just one aspect. You can't easily take a supposed cause and effect from one time and apply it to another without taking all of the other factors into account.
What the banning of guns and vigilante justice did have in common was that they were both unconstitutional.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
....What the banning of guns and vigilante justice did have in common was that they were both unconstitutional.
I am going to go with a HUGE disagree on that one. I am no constitutionalist, but I am pretty sure it doesn't support people taking the law into their own hands. It may not specifically disallow it, but that does not mean it supports it.
Look at it this way: Give the current cancel culture crowd guns and hanging ropes.
Cancel culture is very much vigilantism, which, by definition, is extra-legal justice, which is just great... until you are on the wrong end of the "mob". Personally, I am very much not a fan of that trend.
In reply to aircooled :
Fairly sure he meant (banning guns) and (vigilantism) were both illegal.
You'll need to log in to post.
