The Big Gun Control Thread

Paleocon wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

The obvious exception to this statement is children who have a parent commit suicide. Even if you ignore the emotional side of it, there is a measurable negative impact to their socioeconomic status.

That puts it on par with divorce.

When one of a child's parents commits suicide, one of those parents is permanently removed as a source of income and transportation for the child (amongst other factors). In a divorce, we have legal structures intended to mitigate the damage.

So no, that does not put the suicide of a parent on par with divorce.

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

The obvious exception to this statement is children who have a parent commit suicide. Even if you ignore the emotional side of it, there is a measurable negative impact to their socioeconomic status.

That puts it on par with divorce.

When one of a child's parents commits suicide, one of those parents is permanently removed as a source of income and transportation for the child (amongst other factors). In a divorce, we have legal structures intended to mitigate the damage.

So no, that does not put the suicide of a parent on par with divorce.

Still not seeing the criminality.

I'm not arguing whether it's a crime or not. I was debating your statement that if it's a crime, it's a victimless one.

On the gun-related side of it, I think that suicide is enough of an element to gun-related deaths that it's worth keeping in mind in discussions about gun safety and ease of access.

Paleocon wrote:

Additionally, frankly, the inclusion of suicide statistics in a discussion on violent crime is, to me at least, deliberately deceptive. If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

What difference does it make if it's a crime or not? In many cases (not all, see below) suicide is a human tragedy, and in those cases our society should make an effort to prevent it. If more gun control would decrease the suicide rate, that's a strong point in favor of gun control.

Of course suicide is more complicated than homicide. Personally, I think suicide should be a human right, and if a person makes a considered decision to end their life, I don't think they're doing anything immoral. But the word "considered" is important. A lot of suicides and suicide attempts occur because of temporary emotional imbalances, immediate precipitating events, or even the introduction of a new medication (some antidepressants are notorious for temporarily increasing suicidal ideation). In those cases, a successful suicide is a terrible thing. If guns make this terrible thing more common (which seems pretty clear), then bringing it up in a conversation about gun control is perfectly reasonable.

Paleocon wrote:

Additionally, frankly, the inclusion of suicide statistics in a discussion on violent crime is, to me at least, deliberately deceptive. If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

Previously Linked Article wrote:

Suicides go so underreported that Slate’s Gun Deaths Project

Previously Linked Article wrote:

The national conversation about guns, and about gun control, should include the relationship between guns and suicide.

Previously Linked Article wrote:

Suicide is neglected compared with the large quantity of research on the relationship between homicides and guns

jonstock wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Additionally, frankly, the inclusion of suicide statistics in a discussion on violent crime is, to me at least, deliberately deceptive. If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

What difference does it make if it's a crime or not? In many cases (not all, see below) suicide is a human tragedy, and in those cases our society should make an effort to prevent it. If more gun control would decrease the suicide rate, that's a strong point in favor of gun control.

Of course suicide is more complicated than homicide. Personally, I think suicide should be a human right, and if a person makes a considered decision to end their life, I don't think they're doing anything immoral. But the word "considered" is important. A lot of suicides and suicide attempts occur because of temporary emotional imbalances, immediate precipitating events, or even the introduction of a new medication (some antidepressants are notorious for temporarily increasing suicidal ideation). In those cases, a successful suicide is a terrible thing. If guns make this terrible thing more common (which seems pretty clear), then bringing it up in a conversation about gun control is perfectly reasonable.

I agree with the above, but think the issue of reducing the number of harmful suicides can be more directly and less invasively addressed by public education and removing the rational fear that taking rational measures might result in the loss of one's rights. As it is now, should I take the very rational measure of surrendering my firearms to a friend, neighbor, or local law enforcement in preparation to taking antidepressant medication, I would likely lose my property and, perhaps, even my liberty as folks would interpret this as evidence of "self harming behavior".

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Additionally, frankly, the inclusion of suicide statistics in a discussion on violent crime is, to me at least, deliberately deceptive. If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

Previously Linked Article wrote:

Suicides go so underreported that Slate’s Gun Deaths Project

Previously Linked Article wrote:

The national conversation about guns, and about gun control, should include the relationship between guns and suicide.

Previously Linked Article wrote:

Suicide is neglected compared with the large quantity of research on the relationship between homicides and guns

I think you are going to find tremendous resistance on this from a good many Americans for the basic reason that Americans traditionally believe that the government has an obligation to protect you from other people, but has neither the obligation or the right to protect you from yourself. If a significant part of the argument to restrict or prohibit firearm ownership is to prevent what should be a human right (and with 2/3s of the statistics that particular lobby uses being suicides, how can it not be?), your argument is very much fulfilling the stereotype that it is fundamentally an attack on liberty.

realityhack wrote:

By way of where to spend limited energy, time, and political power I (partly) agree with OG. The focus should be on better gun laws and supporting legislation that reduces gun violence rather than on questionably effective safety training for kids.

While the focus should be on better gun laws, a program teaching kids how dangerous guns are and what to do if they find a gun isn't a waste of time or energy, and it would be a lot easier to implement. I don't know about anyone else, but I thought we were talking about the safety program as only being one aspect of fixing our gun related problems, not a solution to the whole thing. It's not like we can only do one or the other. Just because it doesn't address everything and the number of deaths it could have prevented isn't terribly large doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. Using that logic, we shouldn't waste our efforts trying to prevent mass shootings either, since there are even fewer deaths from them as there were unintentional firearm deaths.

Stengah wrote:

...a program teaching kids how dangerous guns are and what to do if they find a gun isn't a waste of time or energy, and it would be a lot easier to implement.

Easier to implement yes. Waste of time... possibly. The studies linked from the wikipedia entry that included eddy eagle brought up some serious questions as to effectiveness and negative unintended consequences.
I am not in the mood to do a thesis on the subject but the concerns seemed reasonably valid. As a result I am not sure it is really worth any effort to implement as it might not even be a good thing.
If you look earlier in the thread my mind was changed on this point and I still hold to the idea that if I had my own child I would bring them to appropriate training as their parent. But that would at some age involve a range etc.

Stengah wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but I thought we were talking about the safety program as only being one aspect of fixing our gun related problems, not a solution to the whole thing. It's not like we can only do one or the other.

This goes to wither or not you want to view the problem in terms of limited political capital, limited time to devote to issues (on the part of grass roots people), limited attention span, etc. etc.
Hypothetically passing all kinds of great legislation in one term is possible. Realistically I am not so sure.

Stengah wrote:

Just because it doesn't address everything and the number of deaths it could have prevented isn't terribly large doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. Using that logic, we shouldn't waste our efforts trying to prevent mass shootings either, since there are even fewer deaths from them as there were unintentional firearm deaths.

I find this interesting because I have yet to hear anyone come up with a suggestion to prevent mass shootings that wasn't a complete waste of time.

Paleocon wrote:

I think you are going to find tremendous resistance on this from a good many Americans for the basic reason that Americans traditionally believe that the government has an obligation to protect you from other people, but has neither the obligation or the right to protect you from yourself. If a significant part of the argument to restrict or prohibit firearm ownership is to prevent what should be a human right (and with 2/3s of the statistics that particular lobby uses being suicides, how can it not be?), your argument is very much fulfilling the stereotype that it is fundamentally an attack on liberty.

I think a good many Americans are aware that the overwhelming majority of suicides are the result of mental disorders, and not a soundly considered decision ending in the expression of a human right, and if they read the article they'd see a study that finds 24% are "impulsive" undertakings with impulsive being 5 minutes or less between decision and action. So, I'd think a good many Americans would find a discussion of suicide to be a very relevant aspect of a discussion of gun violence.

If they also read the article, they'd find this:

We would be satisfied if the CDC and other government agencies such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics were simply allowed to collect more and better data on guns, homicide and suicide. The CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System, for example, still covers only 18 states. President Obama lifted some of the restrictions on the CDC earlier this year, so we are cautiously optimistic about the prospects for future research. (Gun advocates and supporters of Second Amendment rights shouldn’t assume that more research simply means more arguments against guns. We are eager, for example, to see more studies on the defensive use of guns, a phenomenon about which there is currently very little trustworthy data. Moreover, better research might find ways of reducing gun violence without violating Second Amendment rights. Indeed, reducing gun violence could be one of the best ways of reducing the demand for gun control.)

Of course, the gun industry won't stand for that--they thrive on gun violence and the paranoia they can stoke over being denied the human right to kill yourself with one of their fine products.

I previously posted the gun laws I like. And I do not actually have an issue with the concept of guns. However, just for the sake of discussion I thought I would throw out the extreme view as I would be interested in knowing why people think it is not a good view.

For the sake of hypothetical discussion, let us imagine that the following could actually be passed etc.

Virtual complete ban on all guns. Including personal ownership by local law enforcement.
Licensed shooting ranges could hold guns.
A very small number of individuals such as some armed guards could be issued licenses after extremely long training courses, background checks, and legal training.
Outside of those handful of people possession of a gun would be an A Felony.

Now that is a bit like the situation with certain explosives today. A few people are licensed because they need them for work. The government has some limited use, but anyone else and it is strait to jail.

So what is actually bad about that setup?
Outside of wither it could be passed/enacted what argument is there against this?

Paleocon wrote:

I think you are going to find tremendous resistance on this from a good many Americans for the basic reason that Americans traditionally believe that the government has an obligation to protect you from other people, but has neither the obligation or the right to protect you from yourself. If a significant part of the argument to restrict or prohibit firearm ownership is to prevent what should be a human right (and with 2/3s of the statistics that particular lobby uses being suicides, how can it not be?), your argument is very much fulfilling the stereotype that it is fundamentally an attack on liberty.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You might find some support public support for the right to die. But that support will almost entirely be based on the understanding that someone taking their own life is least bad option in the face of a terminal illness or an incurable and horrendously debilitating disease.

I seriously doubt that a good many Americans would be OK with allowing someone who is temporarily emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced to commit suicide. And that's based on the idea that someone who is emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced is not in full possession of their facilities and really are incapable of making rational decisions (rational being not killing themselves).

The argument that firearm ownership should be restricted or prohibited is based on the knowledge that they cause many serious social problems and are responsible for significant social costs.

Firearms kill tens of thousands of people each year. Firearms non-fatally injure nearly 80,000 people a year. Firearms are used in the commission of hundreds of thousands of violent crimes per year. Firearms cost society billions of dollars in direct healthcare costs and tens of billions in broader social costs.

These are all things that research has told us about firearms and firearm ownership.

The only thing the pro-gun crowd offers as evidence of the social value of firearms are that some people like to shoot recreationally, the telling of colorful anecdotes of how guns occasionally play a role in the prevention of crimes, and the belief in the disturbing paranoid fantasy that gun owners are the living embodiment of freedom and liberty who will save future America from a future tyrannical government.

In short, any perceived benefit of firearms is dwarfed by their actual social costs.

OG_slinger wrote:

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You might find some support public support for the right to die. But that support will almost entirely be based on the understanding that someone taking their own life is least bad option in the face of a terminal illness or an incurable and horrendously debilitating disease.

I seriously doubt that a good many Americans would be OK with allowing someone who is temporarily emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced to commit suicide. And that's based on the idea that someone who is emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced is not in full possession of their facilities and really are incapable of making rational decisions (rational being not killing themselves).

I suspect the same. AFAIK takes a LOT of work to get a right to die law passed. The one recently passed here hinges on all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it is a serious contemplated decision made by someone not in the throws of depression.
I seriously doubt it would have passed otherwise. I voted for it and I would have voted against it (for example).

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think you are going to find tremendous resistance on this from a good many Americans for the basic reason that Americans traditionally believe that the government has an obligation to protect you from other people, but has neither the obligation or the right to protect you from yourself. If a significant part of the argument to restrict or prohibit firearm ownership is to prevent what should be a human right (and with 2/3s of the statistics that particular lobby uses being suicides, how can it not be?), your argument is very much fulfilling the stereotype that it is fundamentally an attack on liberty.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You might find some support public support for the right to die. But that support will almost entirely be based on the understanding that someone taking their own life is least bad option in the face of a terminal illness or an incurable and horrendously debilitating disease.

I seriously doubt that a good many Americans would be OK with allowing someone who is temporarily emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced to commit suicide. And that's based on the idea that someone who is emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced is not in full possession of their facilities and really are incapable of making rational decisions (rational being not killing themselves).

The argument that firearm ownership should be restricted or prohibited is based on the knowledge that they cause many serious social problems and are responsible for significant social costs.

Firearms kill tens of thousands of people each year. Firearms non-fatally injure nearly 80,000 people a year. Firearms are used in the commission of hundreds of thousands of violent crimes per year. Firearms cost society billions of dollars in direct healthcare costs and tens of billions in broader social costs.

These are all things that research has told us about firearms and firearm ownership.

The only thing the pro-gun crowd offers as evidence of the social value of firearms are that some people like to shoot recreationally, the telling of colorful anecdotes of how guns occasionally play a role in the prevention of crimes, and the belief in the disturbing paranoid fantasy that gun owners are the living embodiment of freedom and liberty who will save future America from a future tyrannical government.

In short, any perceived benefit of firearms is dwarfed by their actual social costs.

As a member of an ethnic minority that was literally burned out of their livelihood while law enforcement "observed", the "colorful anecdotes" are a lot more than just colorful anecdotes. Nothing personal, but we just don't trust you to look after anyone but the soccer moms.

That falls apart a bit when you realize that gun possession would not have stopped that from happening.
I totally get the issue of racism and police abuse in the US. But I don't see how gun ownership has helped the situation in any way.

When was the last time someone pulled a gun on a law enforcement officer to make them stop abusing their power and had that turn out well for them? Compare that to how many minorities get killed by guns every year.

realityhack wrote:

When was the last time someone pulled a gun on a law enforcement officer to make them stop abusing their power and had that turn out well for them?

I believe those people fall into the suicide statistic.

Paleocon wrote:

As a member of an ethnic minority that was literally burned out of their livelihood while law enforcement "observed", the "colorful anecdotes" are a lot more than just colorful anecdotes. Nothing personal, but we just don't trust you to look after anyone but the soccer moms.

You are literally making the argument that those businesses were worth more than 250,000 lives. That about how many people were murdered with firearms over the past 20 years.

Of course that number doesn't include the conservative estimate of about 300,000 people who committed suicide with a firearm nor the (way) more than 5 million violent crimes committed with firearms over those two decades. Nor does it include the well north of $500 billion firearms and firearms violence has cost our society over the same period of time.

Against all of that you have exactly one extraordinary event.

Never mind that of the two Koreans that died during the riots one was actually shot by another Korean who mistook him for a rioter.

And never mind that Korean store owners contributed at least four of the 60-odd riot related killings.

And never mind that the violent reaction against Korean store owners after the Rodney King verdict was largely driven by years of incredibly poor relations between the owners and the community they served, including an incident that unfolded at the same time where a Korean store owner effectively got away with shooting and killing a black teenaged girl over a bottle of orange juice.

Even your sterling example for why firearms are supposedly vitally essential glosses over the fact that armed Korean store owners killed multiple people, including one of their own, and that the black community's reaction stemmed in large part to yet another poor use of a firearm the year prior. So, at best, firearms contributed greatly to the situation that you claim is the reason why they are needed in the first place.

And so we're back to the idea that firearms are just a net negative to society and that's the reason they should be restricted/prohibited.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think you are going to find tremendous resistance on this from a good many Americans for the basic reason that Americans traditionally believe that the government has an obligation to protect you from other people, but has neither the obligation or the right to protect you from yourself. If a significant part of the argument to restrict or prohibit firearm ownership is to prevent what should be a human right (and with 2/3s of the statistics that particular lobby uses being suicides, how can it not be?), your argument is very much fulfilling the stereotype that it is fundamentally an attack on liberty.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You might find some support public support for the right to die. But that support will almost entirely be based on the understanding that someone taking their own life is least bad option in the face of a terminal illness or an incurable and horrendously debilitating disease.

I seriously doubt that a good many Americans would be OK with allowing someone who is temporarily emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced to commit suicide. And that's based on the idea that someone who is emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced is not in full possession of their facilities and really are incapable of making rational decisions (rational being not killing themselves).

The argument that firearm ownership should be restricted or prohibited is based on the knowledge that they cause many serious social problems and are responsible for significant social costs.

Firearms kill tens of thousands of people each year. Firearms non-fatally injure nearly 80,000 people a year. Firearms are used in the commission of hundreds of thousands of violent crimes per year. Firearms cost society billions of dollars in direct healthcare costs and tens of billions in broader social costs.

These are all things that research has told us about firearms and firearm ownership.

The only thing the pro-gun crowd offers as evidence of the social value of firearms are that some people like to shoot recreationally, the telling of colorful anecdotes of how guns occasionally play a role in the prevention of crimes, and the belief in the disturbing paranoid fantasy that gun owners are the living embodiment of freedom and liberty who will save future America from a future tyrannical government.

In short, any perceived benefit of firearms is dwarfed by their actual social costs.

As a member of an ethnic minority that was literally burned out of their livelihood while law enforcement "observed", the "colorful anecdotes" are a lot more than just colorful anecdotes. Nothing personal, but we just don't trust you to look after anyone but the soccer moms.

I'm afraid your anecdote is not statistically significant.

As one commenter put it: "If only she had been armed. She could have defended herself".

realityhack wrote:

That falls apart a bit when you realize that gun possession would not have stopped that from happening.
I totally get the issue of racism and police abuse in the US. But I don't see how gun ownership has helped the situation in any way.

When was the last time someone pulled a gun on a law enforcement officer to make them stop abusing their power and had that turn out well for them? Compare that to how many minorities get killed by guns every year.

I actually don't think you get it, otherwise you might have actually read the article. The issue wasn't police abuse. It was deliberate police inaction while animals were looting, burning, and otherwise participating in an orgy of violence directed at them for no other reason than the color of their skin. And much like a medieval pogrom, Law and Order Pete Wilson saw the utility in letting African Americans go nuts for three days as long as no white folks got hurt in the process.

And not only would gun ownership help, it was the ONLY thing that did.

So yeah. You don't get it. You don't get that the need for some self help self defense is always on the minds of folks who aren't the right color for politicians or police to care.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think you are going to find tremendous resistance on this from a good many Americans for the basic reason that Americans traditionally believe that the government has an obligation to protect you from other people, but has neither the obligation or the right to protect you from yourself. If a significant part of the argument to restrict or prohibit firearm ownership is to prevent what should be a human right (and with 2/3s of the statistics that particular lobby uses being suicides, how can it not be?), your argument is very much fulfilling the stereotype that it is fundamentally an attack on liberty.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You might find some support public support for the right to die. But that support will almost entirely be based on the understanding that someone taking their own life is least bad option in the face of a terminal illness or an incurable and horrendously debilitating disease.

I seriously doubt that a good many Americans would be OK with allowing someone who is temporarily emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced to commit suicide. And that's based on the idea that someone who is emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced is not in full possession of their facilities and really are incapable of making rational decisions (rational being not killing themselves).

The argument that firearm ownership should be restricted or prohibited is based on the knowledge that they cause many serious social problems and are responsible for significant social costs.

Firearms kill tens of thousands of people each year. Firearms non-fatally injure nearly 80,000 people a year. Firearms are used in the commission of hundreds of thousands of violent crimes per year. Firearms cost society billions of dollars in direct healthcare costs and tens of billions in broader social costs.

These are all things that research has told us about firearms and firearm ownership.

The only thing the pro-gun crowd offers as evidence of the social value of firearms are that some people like to shoot recreationally, the telling of colorful anecdotes of how guns occasionally play a role in the prevention of crimes, and the belief in the disturbing paranoid fantasy that gun owners are the living embodiment of freedom and liberty who will save future America from a future tyrannical government.

In short, any perceived benefit of firearms is dwarfed by their actual social costs.

As a member of an ethnic minority that was literally burned out of their livelihood while law enforcement "observed", the "colorful anecdotes" are a lot more than just colorful anecdotes. Nothing personal, but we just don't trust you to look after anyone but the soccer moms.

If that ethnic minority had started violently defended itself would the law enforcement officials have kept observing, or just shot everyone defending their property?

Once things get far enough that it's time to reach for your guns, it's too late for guns to fix the problem.
If you reach for your gun before it's time to reach for your gun, you push the problem along to the later point.

Paleocon wrote:

I actually don't think you get it, otherwise you might have actually read the article. The issue wasn't police abuse. It was deliberate police inaction while animals were looting, burning, and otherwise participating in an orgy of violence directed at them for no other reason than the color of their skin. And much like a medieval pogrom, Law and Order Pete Wilson saw the utility in letting African Americans go nuts for three days as long as no white folks got hurt in the process.

And not only would gun ownership help, it was the ONLY thing that did.

So yeah. You don't get it. You don't get that the need for some self help self defense is always on the minds of folks who aren't the right color for politicians or police to care.

I would say that you fundamentally don't get it, either. Especially when you claim that the LAPD should have been ordered to come in with nightstick swinging when the entire reason South Central was erupting in violence was because the LAPD was caught on videotape with nightsticks swinging and had gotten away with it.

You also fundamentally don't get it by claiming that the "animals" were targeting Korean owned businesses only because of the color of their skin. Saying things like that shows that you really don't understand the level of tension between the black and Korean communities in those neighborhoods that had been developing for years.

There were valid reasons for the black community to feel hostile towards Korean store owners: everything from the daily humiliation of having store owners following them around the store because they assumed they were going to steal from them to the broader realization that all those store owners are doing is siphoning away money from the neighborhood and not reinvesting any of it to the very real anger of seeing a Korean store owner effectively get away with murdering a black teenager just a few months prior.

You would also be entirely incorrect saying that gun ownership was the only thing that helped. There were numerous examples of businesses that survived because the owners had bothered to form good relationships with their customers.

At the end of the day you're still essentially arguing that the $400 million worth of Korean businesses that were damaged or destroyed during the riots justifies firearms that cost society tens of thousands dead, 70,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of violent crimes, and tens of billions of dollars in economic damage each and every year. It's an equation that doesn't come close to adding up.

Yonder, to be fair they did reach for their guns and it did help a little (although there are some good arguments for getting out and letting property be damaged when confronted with a mob).
However gun possession did NOT stop the rioting. Nor would a higher rate have likely prevented it.
And I think given the factors involved this particular anecdote is being over simplified a bit.

Anyway I think LostLobster has the best point.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I actually don't think you get it, otherwise you might have actually read the article. The issue wasn't police abuse. It was deliberate police inaction while animals were looting, burning, and otherwise participating in an orgy of violence directed at them for no other reason than the color of their skin. And much like a medieval pogrom, Law and Order Pete Wilson saw the utility in letting African Americans go nuts for three days as long as no white folks got hurt in the process.

And not only would gun ownership help, it was the ONLY thing that did.

So yeah. You don't get it. You don't get that the need for some self help self defense is always on the minds of folks who aren't the right color for politicians or police to care.

I would say that you fundamentally don't get it, either. Especially when you claim that the LAPD should have been ordered to come in with nightstick swinging when the entire reason South Central was erupting in violence was because the LAPD was caught on videotape with nightsticks swinging and had gotten away with it.

You also fundamentally don't get it by claiming that the "animals" were targeting Korean owned businesses only because of the color of their skin. Saying things like that shows that you really don't understand the level of tension between the black and Korean communities in those neighborhoods that had been developing for years.

There were valid reasons for the black community to feel hostile towards Korean store owners: everything from the daily humiliation of having store owners following them around the store because they assumed they were going to steal from them to the broader realization that all those store owners are doing is siphoning away money from the neighborhood and not reinvesting any of it to the very real anger of seeing a Korean store owner effectively get away with murdering a black teenager just a few months prior.

You would also be entirely incorrect saying that gun ownership was the only thing that helped. There were numerous examples of businesses that survived because the owners had bothered to form good relationships with their customers.

At the end of the day you're still essentially arguing that the $400 million worth of Korean businesses that were damaged or destroyed during the riots justifies firearms that cost society tens of thousands dead, 70,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of violent crimes, and tens of billions of dollars in economic damage each and every year. It's an equation that doesn't come close to adding up.

Wow that language sounds familiar. Where did I hear it before? Oh, that's right...

IMAGE(http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/kristallnacht/images/baden/photo01.jpg)

Wow that language sounds familiar. Where did I hear it before? Oh, that's right...

Ummm...

I actually don't think you get it, otherwise you might have actually read the article. The issue wasn't police abuse. It was deliberate police inaction while animals were looting, burning, and otherwise participating in an orgy of violence directed at them for no other reason than the color of their skin. And much like a medieval pogrom, Law and Order Pete Wilson saw the utility in letting African Americans go nuts for three days as long as no white folks got hurt in the process.

Paleo, you know, on most topics, I can at least see common ground. I even get, in this case, the idea that you needed weapons for self defense... and I get the idea that having a baton or a baseball bat is an invitation to argue, while a gun is usually a sign to run your ass a far away as possible, preferably with easy access to cover on your route.

But, bringing up Nazis after having referred to a group of people as animals who needed anger and violence to satisfy some primal bloodlust... kind of makes it sound like you agree with the Nazi's racial ideas concerning one racial group while disliking those ideas when applied against your own racial group.

As far as I know, none of us were part of the riots. I would have been 7 and a half at the time of the riots. And I think we can all agree that we wish that the police in this situation had not done what they did. I would very much like equal protection of the law for all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, economic status, etc... I wish that was an option so that guns were not necessary. I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime though.

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when Paleocon would resort to the Hitler defense. Last person I would've expected to trigger Godwin's Law.

Paleocon wrote:

Wow that language sounds familiar. Where did I hear it before? Oh, that's right...

Are you seriously saying that the blacks and Hispanics of South Central LA were exactly like the Nazis?

That the people who were the literal underclasses of LA with no real political power were exactly like the Brownshirts, who were intimately connected to the political leaders of Germany at the time?

That the LA Riots weren't really a community erupting in anger and lashing out over police brutality and injustice, but were actually part of a secret organized plan for blacks to attack all things Korean?

Demosthenes wrote:
Wow that language sounds familiar. Where did I hear it before? Oh, that's right...

Ummm...

I actually don't think you get it, otherwise you might have actually read the article. The issue wasn't police abuse. It was deliberate police inaction while animals were looting, burning, and otherwise participating in an orgy of violence directed at them for no other reason than the color of their skin. And much like a medieval pogrom, Law and Order Pete Wilson saw the utility in letting African Americans go nuts for three days as long as no white folks got hurt in the process.

Paleo, you know, on most topics, I can at least see common ground. I even get, in this case, the idea that you needed weapons for self defense... and I get the idea that having a baton or a baseball bat is an invitation to argue, while a gun is usually a sign to run your ass a far away as possible, preferably with easy access to cover on your route.

But, bringing up Nazis after having referred to a group of people as animals who needed anger and violence to satisfy some primal bloodlust... kind of makes it sound like you agree with the Nazi's racial ideas concerning one racial group while disliking those ideas when applied against your own racial group.

As far as I know, none of us were part of the riots. I would have been 7 and a half at the time of the riots. And I think we can all agree that we wish that the police in this situation had not done what they did. I would very much like equal protection of the law for all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, economic status, etc... I wish that was an option so that guns were not necessary. I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime though. :(

I doubt it will happen in mine as well. And until it does I am going to continue my advocacy of my right to defend myself, my family, and my livelihood.

For those who haven't actually read any of my stories of the gas station, there have been more than a few times when I and my counterparts at other stations had to deal with situations with either the threat or use of deadly force. And though the BPD do what they can, they sure as hell aren't getting there in time to do more than take a statement or call for an ambulance. So when folks ask me why I need a gun, I tell them when some hopped up animal with an 18" machete comes into my store and threatens to go "Texas chainsaw massacre" on me, I pull my gun and give him an opportunity to vacate without any new holes in him (true story).

And yes, they are animals. And by that I mean anyone without the decency to recognize basic right and wrong. They understand only the language of force and without it, you are a victim. Close your eyes and pretend they don't exist if you like, but the world is filled with sociopaths who are separated from affluent, white society by the force of law and from poor and immigrant society by force of another means.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Wow that language sounds familiar. Where did I hear it before? Oh, that's right...

Are you seriously saying that the blacks and Hispanics of South Central LA were exactly like the Nazis?

That the people who were the literal underclasses of LA with no real political power were exactly like the Brownshirts, who were intimately connected to the political leaders of Germany at the time?

That the LA Riots weren't really a community erupting in anger and lashing out over police brutality and injustice, but were actually part of a secret organized plan for blacks to attack all things Korean?

Are you seriously defending the actions of racially motivated rioters? I get treated like crap from white folks all the time and I would never dream of burning down someone's place of business. When you get sh1tty service, you shop someplace else.

There were not Koreans involved in the beating of Rodney King. This business about Koreans mistreating black customers as some kind of justification for opportunistic violence is straight bs. They did it because they could. They saw it as an opportunity to burn, steal, and participate in an orgy of violence without repercussions and they did so for the pure enjoyment of it. And the LAPD did nothing to stop them because they were just a bunch of chinamen. I guarantee you if they were raging in Beverly Hills, the LAPD would have gunned them down by the truckloads.

Deep breath people. Deep breath.