Starbucks Seeks to Keep Guns Out of Its Coffee Shops
205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;42252900]
This isn't even an argument. 99% of people don't carry, "because they can". There are some fools out there that are like that yes, but they are a minority. Like I've mentioned before, I carry on a regularly basis. Rarely do I carry open, mostly concealed. Why do I do it? Seven years ago I was in a situation where I wish I had a gun.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to open carry, it looks quite silly.
[video=youtube;cYnT6mjSy84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYnT6mjSy84[/video]
This is the best response to this that I've seen.
[QUOTE=Kigen;42270767][video=youtube;cYnT6mjSy84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYnT6mjSy84[/video]
This is the best response to this that I've seen.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't too bad until he started about the american dream. Lol. Okay.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;42256485]I'm sorry but i enjoy sport shooting, and target shooting. I enjoy shooting a .22 at cans and bottles. [B]Does that make me a psychopath that wants to cull the idiots of america?[/B][/QUOTE]
Nobody says this. Nobody. I don't understand why both sides are so obsessed with contructing rebuttals to arguments that aren't aimed at them.
You're allowed to enjoy what you enjoy, and even if you lived here, you'd be able to persue that hobby to one degree or another. The point being made was the the perceived significance of firearms in the US is staggering.
The issue I have personally with guns isn't premeditated murders, but rather spur of the moment ones. If someone comes home from work and finds their wife in bed with another man, he might feel like murder is a suitable reaction. If he can get his hands on a gun in that situation, he'll use it. If he can only get hold of a knife, not only are the chances of there being an injury lower, but the chances of the guy dying are lower too.
That's my problem. Guns are dangerous. You can teach gun safety and trigger discipline all you like, but that doesn't mean shit when the guy in question is deliberately [I]trying[/I] to kill you.
Is there a statistic to show how many attempted robberies are stopped each year by bystanders with a concealed gun? I'm not here to argue or anything, I'm just curious, because it seems to be one of the biggest defensive arguments to why Starbucks are making a bad decision.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42254736][IMG]http://pretentiousape.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
And yet despite the [I]zinger[/I] (why make an argument when you can post a [I]sick burn[/I]) the chart you posted has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the statement you quoted. The general public, IE law-abiding citizens, are not the ones driving that bar on the chart. Unless you're going to argue that banning guns from the general public will drastically reduce their ownership amongst criminals overnight, that number won't change.
This is also leaving aside that the chart you posted is gun murders. Not homicides, but homicides by gun specifically. So [I]of course[/I] in a country where people have guns, there are going to be more gun murders. You know what? There are more [I]car[/I] murders in the US than in most European countries. It's not because we're more murderous, it's [I]because we have more cars[/I] so they're more frequently used as a murder weapon. Try posting general murder rates and suddenly it's a lot less lopsided. Try posting violent crime rates and suddenly the US isn't the worst anymore.
Meanwhile you have countries like Russia and Mexico that have extremely restrictive gun laws, yet much higher murder rates than the US. Looks like when the criminal population already has access to firearms, strict laws against civilian ownership don't help to curtail the violence. Is there anything we can learn from this? Anything at all?
[QUOTE=catbarf;42273344]And yet despite the [I]zinger[/I] (why make an argument when you can post a [I]sick burn[/I]) the chart you posted has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the statement you quoted. The general public, IE law-abiding citizens, are not the ones driving that bar on the chart. Unless you're going to argue that banning guns from the general public will drastically reduce their ownership amongst criminals overnight, that number won't change.
This is also leaving aside that the chart you posted is gun murders. Not homicides, but homicides by gun specifically. So [I]of course[/I] in a country where people have guns, there are going to be more gun murders. You know what? There are more [I]car[/I] murders in the US than in most European countries. It's not because we're more murderous, it's [I]because we have more cars[/I] so they're more frequently used as a murder weapon. Try posting general murder rates and suddenly it's a lot less lopsided. Try posting violent crime rates and suddenly the US isn't the worst anymore.
Meanwhile you have countries like Russia and Mexico that have extremely restrictive gun laws, yet much higher murder rates than the US. Looks like when the criminal population already has access to firearms, strict laws against civilian ownership don't help to curtail the violence. Is there anything we can learn from this? Anything at all?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/domesticv/graph.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42274173][img]http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/domesticv/graph.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
That chart is pure bullshit, we only had 3.6 last year while South Africa had 74.5
[QUOTE=lolz3;42275456]That chart is pure bullshit, we only had 3.6 last year while South Africa had 74.5[/QUOTE]
You are aware that you posted exactly the same number of sources as NoDachi?
Why would someone believe you over him, or him over you when all you're doing is posting ethereal statistics.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42274173][img]http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/domesticv/graph.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Oh look, a graph of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]total horseshit[/url]. Where do you even find this nonsense?
[QUOTE=catbarf;42273344]Meanwhile you have countries like Russia and Mexico that have extremely restrictive gun laws, yet much higher murder rates than the US. Looks like when the criminal population already has access to firearms, strict laws against civilian ownership don't help to curtail the violence. Is there anything we can learn from this? Anything at all?[/QUOTE]
is the solution 'do nothing'?
[QUOTE=catbarf;42276577]Oh look, a graph of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]total horseshit[/url]. Where do you even find this nonsense?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/domesticv/introduction.cfm[/url]
I think this might be it, the image that is broken on the page is the same size, but the link goes to a different path for the same file name and context.
Overall though, the source is from 1990 which may have been an outlier year, or the info being misrepresented as being compared to overall homicide rates of those countries..
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42278132]is the solution 'do nothing'?[/QUOTE]
The 'solution', if there is one, would be to limit criminal access to firearms as much as possible without unduly limiting access by those that can demonstrate responsible ownership of firearms. Expanded background checks would be a great start, as evidenced by the fact that previous mental health issues were never flagged during the naval yard shooter's purchases. But there are plenty of examples to show that in a society that is already heavily armed and has enough black market presence to facilitate illicit trafficking of firearms, a blanket ban is ineffective. As I said before, Mexico and Russia are prime examples.
More importantly, though, we need to address the root causes of firearm violence. A number of countries have high rates of gun ownership and nonexistent gun crime, such as Switzerland, owing to more stable social welfare and lack of organized crime. The drug trade in the US fuels gun trafficking, and the appalling social conditions faced by the lower class produced by the ever-widening wealth disparity are a direct cause of street crime. With these issues, a gun ban is little more than a band-aid, even if it could ever strongly hinder the efforts of criminals to acquire them.
If the flag on your profile is accurate, you are fortunate enough to live in a country that had declining crime before the firearm ban, and which has no strong black market, drug trade, or loosely-controlled land borders by which to supply weapons. What worked for your country probably wouldn't work for us, as evidenced by the overwhelming failure of gun legislation in cities like Chicago to curb gun violence.
The bottom line is we need a more nuanced approach than 'GUNS R BAD' or 'DON'T TAKE MY FREEDUMS'. That's just my $0.02.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42278533]The bottom line is we need a more nuanced approach than 'GUNS R BAD' or 'DON'T TAKE MY FREEDUMS'. That's just my $0.02.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me, from an outside perspective, that the very people who are pushing for stricter gun legislation are also the ones who pay more lip-service to improving the social conditions which drive crime. Whether this makes them more holistic in their approach, I don't know, but it certainly does make it irritating to see people champion politics which are more invested in maintaining the status quo purely because their representative had the audacity to attempt a solution. As far as I'm concerned the tendency of US politics to idolise the rugged, free individualist makes a toxic environment whereby freedoms such as owning firearms are inextricably linked to other politics which do nothing to mitigate the cycles of poverty and crime. I think it is perfectly fair to criticise the Democrats for band-aid solutions but if one was serious about addressing roots issues they would be voting Democrats regardless.
... Not that the Democrats are particularly perfect in regards to enacting robust welfare or combating crime but there isn't much choice
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42254728]funny how places like georgia, north carolina, and alabama all have castle laws and high gun ownership (> 40+%) yet they all have extremely high rates of burgarlies.
[/QUOTE]
It should be pointed out that these places also have alot of poverty, racism and not much in the way of social programs.
Just another possible target for crazies.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42276577]Oh look, a graph of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]total horseshit[/url]. Where do you even find this nonsense?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/127f498dfc031c31341709da2e5c7c9ef30614d8.jpg[/img]
still embarrassingly bad m8
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42291549][img]http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/127f498dfc031c31341709da2e5c7c9ef30614d8.jpg[/img]
still embarrassingly bad m8[/QUOTE]
I guess Russia's not a developed country now? And yeah, no kidding the US has a crime problem. But that only becomes synonymous with 'obvious gun problem' when you use misleading gun crime statistics, ignore inconvenient counter-examples like Switzerland, and completely ignore that gun ownership has been rising steadily over the past decade while crime has been falling. Of the countries on that chart, none have social welfare disparity anywhere near that of the US, and only Poland has a stronger criminal presence thanks to organized crime.
You can't boil down a complex issue to a two-tone chart and captioning it 'GUNS R BAD'.
[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg[/img]
where do you keep getting your facts from
[editline]24th September 2013[/editline]
Funny how you want to use Russia as an example of a 'developed' country (lol) misleadingly, yet also want to use switzerland to argue that guns are good.
switzerland isn not an inconvenient counter-argument. It supports everything I do, it highlights how terrible America's relationship with firearms actually is - and how not to do it. Even the Swiss get pissed off when american's compare the two countries.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912[/url]
read that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.