Doctor Fate wrote:Sorry, NYC is not really in the US.

HILARIOUS!!

The following article talks about the symbiotic relationship between the NRA and the gun industry. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/ ... l-complex/

For instance, the NRA has hyped-up fears that Obama will institute gun control, this results in increased gun buys, and increased donations to the NRA from the gun industry.Not a virtuous cycle. It should be noted that NRA members are less obstinate to gun control than the leadership is.

The observation I would make is that assault weapons are popular-- they are fun to shoot. This results in increased sales. This results in manufacturers competing to develop even more powerful guns. Again, not a virtuous cycle.

Our gun problem is not likely to get better but, based on the above two factors, will get worse. It is one thing to talk about freedom justifying gun deaths, but quite another when we are talking about profit taking. And Congress passed a immunity bill for the industry back in 2005, so they need not have any concerns about being sued for developing more and more powerful weapons.

Doctor Fate wrote:Sorry, NYC is not really in the US.

People rent glorified closets for what could be a mortgage in other parts of the country.

More cabs used than the rest of the country.

In what way are these relevant, and how do they make NYC 'not really in the US' as opposed to just being 'a major city in the US'

Being an outlier on some stats doesn't 'other' a part of your country.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Sorry, NYC is not really in the US.

People rent glorified closets for what could be a mortgage in other parts of the country.

More cabs used than the rest of the country.

In what way are these relevant, and how do they make NYC 'not really in the US' as opposed to just being 'a major city in the US'

Being an outlier on some stats doesn't 'other' a part of your country.

It's not statistics only. It's a mindset.

It's an entirely different way of life. Government dictates so much more than it does anywhere else in the US. NYC is like other big cities in some ways (gun control and nanny-statism), but its government asks itself this question repeatedly, "What aren't we regulating yet and why aren't we regulating it?" I should not be surprised to find out NYC has a board that regulates regulatory boards.

freeman2 wrote:The following article talks about the symbiotic relationship between the NRA and the gun industry. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/ ... l-complex/

For instance, the NRA has hyped-up fears that Obama will institute gun control, this results in increased gun buys, and increased donations to the NRA from the gun industry.

Gun buys have been up since the Newtown massacre. Did the NRA do that? I would argue Bloomberg and the President, among others, did that.

And, it's no surprise that the NRA is able to hype the fact that Obama would try to accomplish some measure of gun control. Is there anything about Obama's past or rhetoric that would give gun enthusiasts the notion Obama is neutral on the matter?

Not a virtuous cycle. It should be noted that NRA members are less obstinate to gun control than the leadership is.

It should be noted that the American people are less in favor of gun control than most gun control enthusiasts. You've got idiots like MSNBC host Ed Schultz calling for "confiscation" and the governor of NY and wannabe President, Cuomo, talking about buyback and/or confiscation of "assault weapons."

NRA members understand this: gun control advocates won't be satisfied until all guns are in control of the government. That's one of the reasons why I believe gun control should be accomplished through the amendment process: it eliminates slippery-slope arguments.

The observation I would make is that assault weapons are popular-- they are fun to shoot. This results in increased sales. This results in manufacturers competing to develop even more powerful guns. Again, not a virtuous cycle.

What percentage of murders are carried our using "assault weapons?"

In 2011, less than 50 people (as far as I can figure) were killed in "mass shootings" in America. That's 50 out of about 8500 (in fact the number is 8,775). In other words, mass shootings accounts for less than 0.6% of gun murders.

. . .

In 2010, of the 8,775 gun homicides, 6,009 were committed with a handgun. Another 373 with shotguns. Combined that makes up 73% of guns used in murders. The other 27% is comprised of rifles (358) and other (96). So, it's pretty easy to see that assault weapons probably account for less than less than 5% of gun homicides a year. Probably 2-3% at the max. (10% would be 877, the total for ALL rifles and Other is 454, about 50% - so that's 5% of the total - and both of those number can't include assault rifles, so...)

So, again, other than the shock value, what will banning assault weapons accomplish in the big picture?

Our gun problem is not likely to get better but, based on the above two factors, will get worse. It is one thing to talk about freedom justifying gun deaths, but quite another when we are talking about profit taking. And Congress passed a immunity bill for the industry back in 2005, so they need not have any concerns about being sued for developing more and more powerful weapons.

But, more and more powerful weapons are not the "problem."

You forgot to mention that it also has the highest GDP of any city in the world...

Good points DF but I certainly have given up on gun control that is going to stop most of the gun deaths. These shootings have an impact that is disproportionate, but they will change American society if they keep happening. You're right the numbers aren't that great but they threaten peace of mind in a way that most gun deaths don't.

Doctor Fate wrote:Can we reboot this?

Read Krauthammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... s_opinions

Now, Krauthammer lists three "ingredients" of a mass shooting:

1. The Weapon.
2. The Shooter.
3. The Culture.

On weapons:

I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

Feinstein’s law, for example, would exempt 900 weapons. And that’s the least of the loopholes. Even the guns that are banned can be made legal with simple, minor modifications.

Most fatal, however, is the grandfathering of existing weapons and magazines. That’s one of the reasons the ’94 law failed. At the time, there were 1.5 million assault weapons in circulation and 25 million large-capacity (i.e., more than 10 bullets) magazines. A reservoir that immense can take 100 years to draw down.

On the shooter:

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

Culture:

We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It’s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

. . .

The irony is that over the last 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We’re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline.

Addressing one problem that is an issue in a tiny sliver of murders is not going to solve the problem. Assault weapons are not the main issue, and certainly not the only issue.

Attack Krauthammer if you will, he's certainly not infallible. However, what he says about the mentally ill--care to dispute that?

freeman2 wrote:You forgot to mention that it also has the highest GDP of any city in the world...

Sure, and the most expensive place to live in the US and the most taxed and the most . . . fill in the blank. I would not live there if someone offered me double of what I make now. I think it would have to be 10x my current income before I even blinked.

I think I called for a broad-based solution that included dealing with the mentally ill. The culture part of it is a waste of time. Our culture is our culture, including the fact people like their guns here. And by the way the fact that overall violence is down argues against trying to reduce violence in films, video games, etc.

freeman2 wrote:I think I called for a broad-based solution that included dealing with the mentally ill. The culture part of it is a waste of time. Our culture is our culture, including the fact people like their guns here. And by the way the fact that overall violence is down argues against trying to reduce violence in films, video games, etc.

Applying the same logic, there is no reason to control weapons.

guapo

You call it paranoid, I call it realism.

And that makes you really paranoid. And according to most people, probably shouldn't be trusted with firearms..

Here's a response to your nonsense from Robert Spitzer.

5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ory_1.html

Except we're dealing with a subset of violent acts (mass shootings) that is rising...

freeman2 wrote:Except we're dealing with a subset of violent acts (mass shootings) that is rising...

Are we?

And, if we are, is it the weapons that are the cause?

If not, why are they the sole focus of the President and liberals? Repeating Krauthammer:

. . . a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

Doctor Fate wrote:Sure, and the most expensive place to live in the US and the most taxed and the most . . . fill in the blank. I would not live there if someone offered me double of what I make now. I think it would have to be 10x my current income before I even blinked.

I think it's great that people have choices on where they live. Some people like it, others don't.

DF said there was no way to effectively control guns in a nation with the second amendment. My only point on bringing NYC into the discussion was to say that guns are pretty effectively controlled here, and, last I checked anyway, the City is bound by the same constitution as the rest of the country.