CDZ Where Do Guns Used In Crimes Come From?

[westwall]

The world is awash in guns. Has always been, will always be.

Map of civilian guns per capita by country from the Small Arms Survey 2007.
​

"Awash" in guns? "The world?" I hardly call 10 or fewer guns per 100 individuals "awash." Have you looked at the populations of China and India compared to that of the U.S? Have you considered the land area of the U.S. compared to the combined area that of most of Asia, including Russia, China, India, most of Africa, and most of South America? No, the world is not awash in guns; the U.S. is.

Moreover, the rate of gun ownership has gradually declined in the modern era, falling from ~47% in the early 1970s to 31% in 2014. The decline has been attributed to there being fewer hunters (presumably because hunting is either a less popular recreation or it is less necessary) in the 21st century than there were in the early-late 20th century.

What a cute map that means absolutely nothing. Here is your so called paradise of Somalia.. Look at that nice pale blue color as opposed to the dark, dark, evil, black color of the USA. That entire map of Africa is a ridiculous lie as anyone who has even cared to look at a news report knows. So, why do you post up a map that is blatantly false?


Somalia: Warlords, Pirates and the Politics of Morass

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Funny how folks who wail endlessly about the "liberal MSM" turn to it for external validation of/about places they've never been and things they'll never question or leave home to go learn about first hand.

I have been to far more places, and lived in more third world poopholes, than you ever will sunshine. I speak from experience. You on the other hand must live your life vicariously through those who have done as I have. That's OK, most people don't get to travel as extensively as I have, most people don't get to enjoy the scent of dung pervading everywhere you walk. Heck, I would love to have not experienced some of those ripe old smells!

But the facts are the facts, the world is awash in guns. Your cute little graphs and maps are ridiculously false. When I was working in Africa the very first thing I would do after touching down was go pick up an AK or a G3 (I prefer the G3) and they cost about 50 bucks back then. And when I was leaving I would give them to whomever was my most reliable employee.

That IS the reality of the Third World.

Uh, they are not my graphs/maps you pompous pathetic little ass. The world is awash in guns, the world is awash in guns, the world is awash in guns, repeat mindlessly. And I have a few of them, so? Wtf are you going on about, hell, you don’t even know. I have no doubt at all that everywhere you walk you smell dung, rightly so, with your sanctimonious oh-I've-done-so-much-more-than-these -mortals bullshit. You don't have any fucking clue where anyone's been on here, and we have no reason to believe your narrow minded ass has been anywhere - that usually affords one some semblance of enlightenment, and you exhibit none. Forget information, we have your wonderful little anecdotes to go on.

This is the CDZ junior, mind your manners. Pompous is your assertion that most people never leave home. That is pompous, junior. And it is also factually incorrect. The majority of the people who talk about guns on this forum are far better traveled than you. It is quite plain to see that you truly have no real world experience. That is OBVIOUS. But, like I said, that doesn't invalidate your opinion, it is just obvious that yours is an uninformed opinion.

Your information is a lie. Gun ownership is not dropping in the US. That is a propaganda piece that has been widely discounted, as has every other anti gun piece of "information" you present us. Which means, dear sir, that your "information" isn't.

Do you understand that fact? Anecdotes, that are based on facts, trump "information" that is false every time.

 

[320 Years of History]

​

Here is a graphic for homicides per capita:

It does make a marketable difference in places where only the military, police and criminals have firearms.

Difference or no difference, my remarks and the graphic I posted were shared for one and only one thing: to show the qualitative and quantitative inaccuracy of the assertion that "the world is awash in guns."

Looking at both maps above, it's clear the proposition that gun ownership is a specious metric for one to cite as a unitary factor explaining the murder rate.

• That the two most populous nations on the planet, both of which have populations that at least treble the U.S.', have vastly lower rates of gun ownership and they have comparable or lower rates of homicide.
• Gun ownership alone cannot account for homicide rates, partly because firearms aren't the sole means of killing people, partly because merely owning a gun doesn't inspire one use it to kill people, and partly because the data in the two maps above show that gun ownership rates and homicide rates have almost nothing to do with one another.
  • With the U.S. having a gun ownership rate >75 per capita, were the metric of gun possession/ownership indeed a driver to minimizing the homicide rate, one would expect the U.S. to have the lowest homicide rate on the planet for no other nation has as high a rate of gun ownership.
  • With the U.S. having a rate of gun ownership >75 per capital, were the metric of gun possession/ownership indeed a driver to increasing the homicide rate, one would expect the U.S. to have the highest homicide rate on Earth for no other nation has a higher rate of gun ownership.

​

• Wealth/income/poverty levels are not unitary causes of homicide rates. One can see that merely by looking on both maps at China, India, Libya, Argentina, Australia, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Benin and a host of other West African nations, along with nearly any European nation. There are clearly nations wherein the citizenry have comparable and lower wealth/income/poverty levels to that of the U.S. and that have comparable or lower homicide rates. All of them have far lower rates of gun ownership.
  
  
  
  (click the map to access its source data)
  
  
  Countries by 2015 GDP (nominal) per capita. (click the map to access its source data)

The maps above show that the "easy" answers provide no solution at all to overcoming (reducing) rates of homicide. It's obvious that a multiplicity of factors contribute to homicide rates. It's my opinion that cultural attitudes toward humanity are the driving causal factors determining homicide rates in general. Those attitudes are almost certainly in turn deteriorated and ameliorated by simplistically observed statuses such as gun ownership rates, wealth/poverty levels, and so on.

What cultural values are the dominant ones driving homicide rates? I don't know. I also don't know if anyone else does or whether the matter has been rigorously examined. I do know that such an evaluation is neither easy to conduct nor is it quick and easy to implement initiatives that will alter cultural attitudes. Additionally, there is the challenge whereof what appears to be a collective cultural value does not necessarily equate or correspond to behavior at an individual level. For example:

• The U.S. at the nation-state level attests to placing a high value on human life. At an individual level, however, lots of folks exhibit behaviors that suggest their retention of wealth and/or property is more important than is the life of another human who'd act to conscript that property from its current owner/possessor. Shooting someone who breaks into one's home to steal a television or some trinkets is one such behavior/thought process. Moreover, lots of other folks may think the homeowner/resident justified in doing so.
• The U.S. at the nation-state level asserts that we are all equal as extant human beings. At an individual level, however, it'd be hard to find persons who think another human being's life is as valuable as their own. I wouldn't in most situations bring that up, but when it comes to lowering rates of gun-related deaths or homicides in general, it's relevant because "who dies" doesn't matter; what matters is whether fewer individuals die. The only attitude that leads to that happening is the one whereby individuals consider their life as fungible as that of another. (The attitude noted in this bullet point is relevant only in one-to-one situations. Obviously, two or more lives are worth more than one.)

What might one infer from the existence of attitudes such as, but not limited to, the two noted above? Well, largely that nations having large quantities of individuals who hold and act upon those and similarly dichotomous attitudes are nations comprised of unprincipled citizens. That can be changed, but not overnight, not easily, and certainly not by denying the misalignment between cultural values and attitudes and exhibited behaviors.

What rates of gun ownership may have something to do with is the rate and quantity of firearm related deaths. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of ranking 11th in the world for firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, the U.S. rate being ~10.5. One either thinks the gun-related death rate in the U.S. should be lower and is willing to support actions aimed at doing so, or one does not. If one thinks something must be done to lower the gun-related death rate, what one needs to do is be part of the solution by offering ideas on how to accomplish the objective, and one must refrain from being part of the part of the problem that consists of merely telling everyone else what's wrong with their solution proposals and offering no solution of one's own.

 

[Hiryuu]

Difference or no difference, my remarks and the graphic I posted were shared for one and only one thing: to show the qualitative and quantitative inaccuracy of the assertion that "the world is awash in guns."

Looking at both maps above, it's clear the proposition that gun ownership is a specious metric for to cite as a unitary factor explaining the murder rate.

• That the two most populous nations on the planet, both of which have populations that at least treble the U.S.', have vastly lower rates of gun ownership and they have comparable or lower rates of homicide.
• Gun ownership alone cannot account for homicide rates, partly because firearms aren't the sole means of killing people, partly because merely owning a gun doesn't inspire one use it to kill people, and partly because the data in the two maps above show that gun ownership rates and homicide rates have almost nothing to do with one another.
  • With the U.S. having a gun ownership rate >75 per capita, were the metric of gun possession/ownership indeed a driver to minimizing the homicide rate, one would expect the U.S. to have the lowest homicide rate on the planet for no other nation has as high a rate of gun ownership.
  • With the U.S. having a rate of gun ownership >75 per capital, were the metric of gun possession/ownership indeed a driver to increasing the homicide rate, one would expect the U.S. to have the highest homicide rate on Earth for no other nation has a higher rate of gun ownership.

​

• Wealth/income/poverty levels are not unitary causes of homicide rates. One can see that merely by looking on both maps at China, India, Libya, Argentina, Australia, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Benin and a host of other West African nations, along with nearly any European nation. There are clearly nations wherein the citizenry have comparable and lower wealth/income/poverty levels to that of the U.S. and that have comparable or lower homicide rates. All of them have far lower rates of gun ownership.
  
  
  
  (click the map to access its source data)
  
  
  Countries by 2015 GDP (nominal) per capita. (click the map to access its source data)

The maps above show that the "easy" answers provide no solution at all to overcoming (reducing) rates of homicide. It's obvious that a multiplicity of factors contribute to homicide rates. It's my opinion that cultural attitudes toward humanity are the driving causal factors determining homicide rates in general. Those attitudes are almost certainly in turn deteriorated and ameliorated by simplistically observed statuses such as gun ownership rates, wealth/poverty levels, and so on.

What cultural values are the dominant ones driving homicide rates? I don't know. I also don't know if anyone else does or whether the matter has been rigorously examined. I do know that such an evaluation is neither easy to conduct nor is it quick and easy to implement initiatives that will alter cultural attitudes. Additionally, there is the challenge whereof what appears to be a collective cultural value does not necessarily equate or correspond to behavior at an individual level. For example:

• The U.S. at the nation-state level attests to placing a high value on human life. At an individual level, however, lots of folks exhibit behaviors that suggest their retention of wealth and/or property is more important than is the life of another human who'd act to conscript that property from its current owner/possessor. Shooting someone who breaks into one's home to steal a television or some trinkets is one such behavior/thought process. Moreover, lots of other folks may think the homeowner/resident justified in doing so.
• The U.S. at the nation-state level asserts that we are all equal as extant human beings. At an individual level, however, it'd be hard to find persons who think another human being's life is as valuable as their own. I wouldn't in most situations bring that up, but when it comes to lowering rates of gun-related deaths or homicides in general, it's relevant because "who dies" doesn't matter; what matters is whether fewer individuals die. The only attitude that leads to that happening is the one whereby individuals consider their life as fungible as that of another. (The attitude noted in this bullet point is relevant only in one-to-one situations. Obviously, two or more lives are worth more than one.)

What might one infer from the existence of attitudes such as, but not limited to, the two noted above? Well, largely that nations having large quantities of individuals who hold and act upon those and similarly dichotomous attitudes are nations comprised of unprincipled citizens. That can be changed, but not overnight, not easily, and certainly not by denying the misalignment between cultural values and attitudes and exhibited behaviors.

What rates of gun ownership may have something to do with is the rate and quantity of firearm related deaths. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of ranking 11th in the world for firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, the U.S. rate being ~10.5. One either thinks the gun-related death rate in the U.S. should be lower and is willing to support actions aimed at doing so, or one does not. If one thinks something must be done to lower the gun-related death rate, what one needs to do is be part of the solution by offering ideas on how to accomplish the objective, and one must refrain from being part of the part of the problem that consists of merely telling everyone else what's wrong with their solution proposals and offering no solution of one's own.

I didn't question why you posted what you did, and your thesis is impressive. But as a simple layman, I find it quite amusing when people try to make statistical hay out of rankings of countries in regards to firearms fatalities. I mean face it, you posted a graphic that clearly identifies the US as having far more firearms than countries that ... Wait for it ... Don't allow their citizens to own firearms.

That may be noteworthy to someone as astute as you, but for a simple redneck like myself, it is a kind of like someone trying to make an abstract point in saying people who own chainsaws are more likely to have chainsaw related injuries and deaths. It isn't that hard to understand and it would be stupid to assume otherwise.

 

[320 Years of History]

Difference or no difference, my remarks and the graphic I posted were shared for one and only one thing: to show the qualitative and quantitative inaccuracy of the assertion that "the world is awash in guns."

Looking at both maps above, it's clear the proposition that gun ownership is a specious metric for to cite as a unitary factor explaining the murder rate.

• That the two most populous nations on the planet, both of which have populations that at least treble the U.S.', have vastly lower rates of gun ownership and they have comparable or lower rates of homicide.
• Gun ownership alone cannot account for homicide rates, partly because firearms aren't the sole means of killing people, partly because merely owning a gun doesn't inspire one use it to kill people, and partly because the data in the two maps above show that gun ownership rates and homicide rates have almost nothing to do with one another.
  • With the U.S. having a gun ownership rate >75 per capita, were the metric of gun possession/ownership indeed a driver to minimizing the homicide rate, one would expect the U.S. to have the lowest homicide rate on the planet for no other nation has as high a rate of gun ownership.
  • With the U.S. having a rate of gun ownership >75 per capital, were the metric of gun possession/ownership indeed a driver to increasing the homicide rate, one would expect the U.S. to have the highest homicide rate on Earth for no other nation has a higher rate of gun ownership.

​

• Wealth/income/poverty levels are not unitary causes of homicide rates. One can see that merely by looking on both maps at China, India, Libya, Argentina, Australia, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Benin and a host of other West African nations, along with nearly any European nation. There are clearly nations wherein the citizenry have comparable and lower wealth/income/poverty levels to that of the U.S. and that have comparable or lower homicide rates. All of them have far lower rates of gun ownership.
  
  
  
  (click the map to access its source data)
  
  
  Countries by 2015 GDP (nominal) per capita. (click the map to access its source data)

The maps above show that the "easy" answers provide no solution at all to overcoming (reducing) rates of homicide. It's obvious that a multiplicity of factors contribute to homicide rates. It's my opinion that cultural attitudes toward humanity are the driving causal factors determining homicide rates in general. Those attitudes are almost certainly in turn deteriorated and ameliorated by simplistically observed statuses such as gun ownership rates, wealth/poverty levels, and so on.

What cultural values are the dominant ones driving homicide rates? I don't know. I also don't know if anyone else does or whether the matter has been rigorously examined. I do know that such an evaluation is neither easy to conduct nor is it quick and easy to implement initiatives that will alter cultural attitudes. Additionally, there is the challenge whereof what appears to be a collective cultural value does not necessarily equate or correspond to behavior at an individual level. For example:

• The U.S. at the nation-state level attests to placing a high value on human life. At an individual level, however, lots of folks exhibit behaviors that suggest their retention of wealth and/or property is more important than is the life of another human who'd act to conscript that property from its current owner/possessor. Shooting someone who breaks into one's home to steal a television or some trinkets is one such behavior/thought process. Moreover, lots of other folks may think the homeowner/resident justified in doing so.
• The U.S. at the nation-state level asserts that we are all equal as extant human beings. At an individual level, however, it'd be hard to find persons who think another human being's life is as valuable as their own. I wouldn't in most situations bring that up, but when it comes to lowering rates of gun-related deaths or homicides in general, it's relevant because "who dies" doesn't matter; what matters is whether fewer individuals die. The only attitude that leads to that happening is the one whereby individuals consider their life as fungible as that of another. (The attitude noted in this bullet point is relevant only in one-to-one situations. Obviously, two or more lives are worth more than one.)

What might one infer from the existence of attitudes such as, but not limited to, the two noted above? Well, largely that nations having large quantities of individuals who hold and act upon those and similarly dichotomous attitudes are nations comprised of unprincipled citizens. That can be changed, but not overnight, not easily, and certainly not by denying the misalignment between cultural values and attitudes and exhibited behaviors.

What rates of gun ownership may have something to do with is the rate and quantity of firearm related deaths. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of ranking 11th in the world for firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year, the U.S. rate being ~10.5. One either thinks the gun-related death rate in the U.S. should be lower and is willing to support actions aimed at doing so, or one does not. If one thinks something must be done to lower the gun-related death rate, what one needs to do is be part of the solution by offering ideas on how to accomplish the objective, and one must refrain from being part of the part of the problem that consists of merely telling everyone else what's wrong with their solution proposals and offering no solution of one's own.

I didn't question why you posted what you did, and your thesis is impressive. But as a simple layman, I find it quite amusing when people try to make statistical hay out of rankings of countries in regards to firearms fatalities. I mean face it, you posted a graphic that clearly identifies the US as having far more firearms than countries that ... Wait for it ... Don't allow their citizens to own firearms.

That may be noteworthy to someone as astute as you, but for a simple redneck like myself, it is a kind of like someone trying to make an abstract point in saying people who own chainsaws are more likely to have chainsaw related injuries and deaths.

Red:
??? "Make statistical hay...???" I don't think you consider my post that you quoted as being one that makes "hay" that doesn't "bale well," but I must ask to be sure of that. Are you of a mind that I was "making statistical hay" out of rankings of national rates of firearm ownership? I understand that you're tickled by anyone's doing so.

The thesis, but not the only important theme, of that post is that there are clear limits to what can be inferred validly from metrics such as those shown in the maps you and I shared. There are some "hay bales" that one can rightly make of the statistics, and main "bale" is that which I stated early in the post, namely, "that gun ownership is a specious metric for one to cite as a unitary factor explaining the murder rate:" What I'd call that is a "hay bale" made from the data (observations) that are the "hay."

Blue:
Yes, that is what that map shows. That's all it shows. That data alone can be used to draw some conclusions, but the conclusion that gun ownership alone affects gun-related deaths/killings, or homicides in general, isn't among them.

Pink:
Being simpleminded or sage and being a redneck or not have nothing to do with one another. I'm not at all clear why your status as a redneck is something you saw fit to note.

Well, owning a chainsaw probably does militate for one's being at higher risk of experiencing or being involved with chainsaw-related injuries or death. The chainsaw isn't to blame for the death any more than a gun is to blame for gun-related deaths.

Nobody with any sense is going to blame the gun or the chainsaw; we don't put guns and chainsaws in jail or charge them with crimes. That said, if one doesn't have a chainsaw or gun, clearly one and others around one are at lower risk of suffering, while in one's presence, chainsaw or gun-related injuries/deaths.

Proposals for reducing gun-related rates that include only constraints on gun ownership rates offer the potential for success only with reducing gun-related deaths. Part of the basis for proposing that gun ownership be more tightly constrained/controlled is that guns, unlike any number of other implements one may use to kill another, have very few potentially non-lethal "standard/intended" uses and some guns and the related ammunition are made for the express purpose of maiming or killing other humans. The same cannot be said of the chef knife in one's kitchen, the ropes and rat poison in one's shed, one's hands, or a host of other implements.

By the same token and considering a gun as merely one of many kinds of ranged weapon, nations, including the U.S., assert that some nations be prohibited from owning certain kinds of powerful ranged weapons. That assertion comes from folks on both sides of the "gun debate." Accordingly, it's clear that folks on each side of the "gun debate" principly accept that controlling/curtailing one's ability to obtain an implement that has killing people (individually or en masse) in order to win battles great and small among its primary raisons d'etre can have an impact in reducing the quantity of people that folks who might obtain the object can kill. Such reasoning clearly cannot be all that meritorious rationally if one cannot apply it on both large and small scales. So tell, me how can supposedly clear thinking individuals hold and promote ostensibly principled/rational ideas as good ones when speciousness readily appears in the ideas' lack of scalability?

The answers to that question are several:

• The ideas in question are neither principled nor rational.
• The folks who present those are, for a variety of reasons and with regard to the subject of the idea in question, unwilling or unable to dispassionately and comprehensively consider the matter in question.
• The folks who, upon hearing such ill conceived ideas, are unwilling or unable to dispassionately and comprehensively evaluate their merit.

That our society consists of folks who hold such unscalable positions hints strongly if not clearly establishing the unprincipled nature and fallibility of thinking among people who propone them. That there are so many folks who do seek to advance such ideas goes directly toward identifying the nature and scope of cultural depravity and general dearth of intellectual acuity present in the societies in which those folks reside.

 

[Hiryuu]

Red:
??? "Make statistical hay...???" I don't think you consider my post that you quoted as being one that makes "hay" that doesn't "bale well," but I must ask to be sure of that. Are you of a mind that I was "making statistical hay" out of rankings of national rates of firearm ownership? I understand that you're tickled by anyone's doing so.

The thesis, but not the only important theme, of that post is that there are clear limits to what can be inferred validly from metrics such as those shown in the maps you and I shared. There are some "hay bales" that one can rightly make of the statistics, and main "bale" is that which I stated early in the post, namely, "that gun ownership is a specious metric for one to cite as a unitary factor explaining the murder rate:" What I'd call that is a "hay bale" made from the data (observations) that are the "hay."

Blue:
Yes, that is what that map shows. That's all it shows. That data alone can be used to draw some conclusions, but the conclusion that gun ownership alone affects gun-related deaths/killings, or homicides in general, isn't among them.

Pink:
Being simpleminded or sage and being a redneck or not have nothing to do with one another. I'm not at all clear why your status as a redneck is something you saw fit to note.

Well, owning a chainsaw probably does militate for one's being at higher risk of experiencing or being involved with chainsaw-related injuries or death. The chainsaw isn't to blame for the death any more than a gun is to blame for gun-related deaths.

Nobody with any sense is going to blame the gun or the chainsaw; we don't put guns and chainsaws in jail or charge them with crimes. That said, if one doesn't have a chainsaw or gun, clearly one and others around one are at lower risk of suffering, while in one's presence, chainsaw or gun-related injuries/deaths.

Proposals for reducing gun-related rates that include only constraints on gun ownership rates offer the potential for success only with reducing gun-related deaths. Part of the basis for proposing that gun ownership be more tightly constrained/controlled is that guns, unlike any number of other implements one may use to kill another, have very few potentially non-lethal "standard/intended" uses and some guns and the related ammunition are made for the express purpose of maiming or killing other humans. The same cannot be said of the chef knife in one's kitchen, the ropes and rat poison in one's shed, one's hands, or a host of other implements.

By the same token and considering a gun as merely one of many kinds of ranged weapon, nations, including the U.S., assert that some nations be prohibited from owning certain kinds of powerful ranged weapons. That assertion comes from folks on both sides of the "gun debate." Accordingly, it's clear that folks on each side of the "gun debate" principly accept that controlling/curtailing one's ability to obtain an implement that has killing people (individually or en masse) in order to win battles great and small among its primary raisons d'etre can have an impact in reducing the quantity of people that folks who might obtain the object can kill. Such reasoning clearly cannot be all that meritorious rationally if one cannot apply it on both large and small scales. So tell, me how can supposedly clear thinking individuals hold and promote ostensibly principled/rational ideas as good ones when speciousness readily appears in the ideas' lack of scalability?

The answers to that question are several:

• 
  
• The ideas in question are neither principled nor rational.
• The folks who present those are, for a variety of reasons and with regard to the subject of the idea in question, unwilling or unable to dispassionately and comprehensively consider the matter in question.
• The folks who, upon hearing such ill conceived ideas, are unwilling or unable to dispassionately and comprehensively evaluate their merit.

That our society consists of folks who hold such unscalable positions hints strongly if not clearly establishing the unprincipled nature and fallibility of thinking among people who propone them. That there are so many folks who do seek to advance such ideas goes directly toward identifying the nature and scope of cultural depravity and general dearth of intellectual acuity present in the societies in which those folks reside.

Red:
Statistics are used and abused, interpreted and misinterpreted. I tend to call it "making hay" when someone thinks it looks better in bales than swaying in the wind.

Blue:
It was never in question what the graphics demonstrated, as each were labeled fairly clearly. One could draw an abundance of conclusions, if it so suited their purpose, but I have a tendency to think they pretty much mean what they say. Point in case, I have seen the same graphics look remarkably different according to exactly where they creator decides to delineate the categories. The difference of one point using a per capita scale in a 1:100 metric vs a 1:100k metric makes things look a little different even if the data is the same at base level. But again, understanding the graphics for what they are is often the best route.

Pink:
Being a redneck means the crud in pink doesn't have to be explained, where being a sage compels someone to think it does, or at the least entertain themselves doing so.

Green:
That's the beauty of the argument about firearms in a nutshell. You throw around phrases like unprincipled as well as a bunch of other adjectives/adverbs that express your thoughts. Unfortunately, just because you don't agree with someone else's principles doesn't mean that yours are any better, nor that they are unprincipled. Still, I am certain you have a thorough and complete understanding of your principles. It is just a blessing that where I reside, people still have the tendency to respect the wishes of another when they say, "It's none of your damn business".

 

[320 Years of History]

Pink:
Being a redneck means the crud in pink doesn't have to be explained, where being a sage compels someone to think it does, or at the least entertain themselves doing so.

Oh, my....I am certain my redneck father would disagree with you. I cannot say whether most rednecks would or would not concur with you.

Green:
That's the beauty of the argument about firearms in a nutshell. You throw around phrases like unprincipled as well as a bunch of other adjectives/adverbs that express your thoughts. Unfortunately, just because you don't agree with someone else's principles doesn't mean that yours are any better, nor that they are unprincipled. Still, I am certain you have a thorough and complete understanding of your principles. It is just a blessing that where I reside, people still have the tendency to respect the wishes of another when they say, "It's none of your damn business".

My qualitative assessment of others' principles has nothing to do with whether I agree with their principle(s). It has everything to do with the consistency and comprehensiveness with which the individuals apply the principles they have and elected to share. "Unprincipled" is a quality that has at least two manifestations that do not necessarily occur simultaneously:

• Simply having few or no principles, and/or
• Selectively applying and adhering to, or aiming to compel others to adhere to, the ones one has/airs.

 

[Hiryuu]

Oh, my....I am certain my redneck father would disagree with you. I cannot say whether most rednecks would or would not concur with you.

I didn't say that rednecks don't think there are a few things people need explained. I indicated that my being a redneck means you don't need to explain them to me.

Where you may see some benefit in discussing the fact that "firearms don't kill people, people kill people", I tend to already know this owning several firearms. In fact, I have also never accidentally shot anything, much less anyone. I have the tendency to keep my weapons pointed in the right direction, adhere to proper safety protocols and pay attention to the fact I am handling a deadly weapon.

To be fair, I did accidentally start a brush fire at the range with a tracer round while qualifying with the M-60. It spun off a hard target and ignited the dry underbrush. The fire was contained and they kept the range open allowing it to burn off the area it was in. It added to the ambiance for the remainder of the afternoon.

My qualitative assessment of others' principles has nothing to do with whether I agree with their principle(s). It has everything to do with the consistency and comprehensiveness with which the individuals apply the principles they have and elected to share. "Unprincipled" is a quality that has at least two manifestations that do not necessarily occur simultaneously:

• Simply having few or no principles, and/or
• Selectively applying and adhering to, or aiming to compel others to adhere to, the ones one has/airs.

I am also pretty consistent and comprehensive with my principles. One of them is a strong support of personal responsibility and independence, and it alone uncouples the idea I am required to share principles with anyone. Most people can damn well do and think what they please, and I am going to follow my principles regardless of anyone's agreement, acceptance or invalid authoritative social oversight. It isn't that I reject society's group values, but when it comes to my principles, I have a tendency to respect others (except when they are in dire conflict) and negotiate a working relationship that doesn't require others to compromise nor relinquish their liberties, freedoms and independence in order to suit what I think is best for them/us.

I know, it's terrible isn't it?

My principles require me to accept responsibility for my failures, and take responsibility for my actions and/or desires. If I could only blame society for all my problems, then I would probably find it a lot easier to start expecting society to think one way or another in order to suit my fancy. I have no idea how we could have possibly made it as far as we have out here in the boonies, without some nitwit telling us what we should think and do to help our neighbors. How we ever manage to keep our firearms where they need to be, and restrict "high crimes" to George getting stoned and eating all the pecan pie, is simply astonishing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Straw purchase: Absolutely. Can laws be amended to preclude back room gun deals, internet sales, etc?

None of these things have anything to do with straw purchases;
Straw purchases demonstrate the inanity of the idea that it is possible for a law to prevent people from breaking another law.

au contraire...
straw pur·chase
noun
US

1. a criminal act in which a person who is prohibited from buying firearms uses another person to buy a gun on their behalf.

Correct. it is illegal.
My point, obviously was there's no way to prevent someone from breaking this law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The founders cared about no one but themselves which is why all the liberty, the vote, and the freedom they went on and on about was reserved for affluent white land holding males alone. Everyone else had to wrestle any consideration at all from them later on in history, against their vision. The so called american revolution was merely a pissing match between bickering factions of british and colonial aristocracies. I do congratulate your awakening here; " .... to give to its slave class .... " in that you now have come to understand we still have what amounts to a slave class in this society - the poor, working poor, and the working class, and yes, there has indeed been a vast redistribution of wealth over the past 5-6 decades, just not in the false direction you're blathering on about.

I understand Cuba is now accepting American refugees.
Do you need help getting a boat or do you plan to handle the arrangements yourself?