Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: Why racialize this? Don't you care about all the gunless black people who are too poor to move to the posh white suburbs?

Because it is a racial issue, not a gun issue.  I don't contest that non-criminals should be able to own guns in NYC.  I do contest that allowing guns into NYC will make it as safe as Montana.  It's apples vs oranges.

I want gunless black and colored people to be able to legally own guns, but not if it emboldens the colored thugs that live in their communities even more.  Like you said, these thungs already get guns.  The problem isn't in the legality; its the desire to use violence to achieve their ends.  When they no longer have to go to the circumvention lengths to get guns because of their felon status, will a free for all in acquiring guns for all embolden them to use violence even more?  If so, then you support gun control to one degree or another because you recognize the real problem is elsewhere.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Why racialize this? Don't you care about all the gunless black people who are too poor to move to the posh white suburbs?

Because it is a racial issue, not a gun issue.  I don't contest that non-criminals should be able to own guns in NYC.  I do contest that allowing guns into NYC will make it as safe as Montana.  It's apples vs oranges.

But I never claimed that, never implied that, and don't believe that. You're right, of course. Simply allowing guns won't make NYC super safe. But I mean, if you really want to get all racial here, then the way you make NYC as safe as Montana is to remove all the black people from the general population, which is sort of what Bloomberg was trying to do.

Rather, what I'm claiming is that allowing guns could not possibly make things worse and stands a good chance of making things better; that it is a positive-sum policy.

MachineGhost wrote: I want gunless black and colored people to be able to legally own guns, but not if it emboldens the colored thugs that live in their communities even more.

"Emboldens" isn't the right word. Taken literally, the idea is absurd. If thugs knew more of their potential victims or the bystanders were armed, it would be suicidal to become bolder rather than more discreet. It's a ridiculous concept.

If what you really mean is "…but not if it increases the ease with which the colored thugs that live in their communities can steal those guns" then that's more reasonable, but in that case, what we need is to be able to weigh the harm caused by slightly increased access to firearms that criminals can steal locally (because again they already have lots of guns even though this is illegal) vs the greatly increased access of ordinary folks to means of defense against criminals. It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the increased ability for now-defenseless people to defend themselves would be outweighed by increased gun thefts from people who already have lots of illegally-acquired guns they are already using to kill each other and terrorize their communities.

MachineGhost wrote: When they no longer have to go to the circumvention lengths to get guns because of their felon status, will a free for all in acquiring guns for all embolden them to use violence even more?

No. At least, not if the entire rest of the country is any indication.

Pointedstick wrote: If what you really mean is "…but not if it increases the ease with which the colored thugs that live in their communities can steal those guns" then that's more reasonable, but in that case, what we need is to be able to weigh the harm caused by slightly increased access to firearms that criminals can steal locally (because again they already have lots of guns even though this is illegal) vs the greatly increased access of ordinary folks to means of defense against criminals. It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the increased ability for now-defenseless people to defend themselves would be outweighed by increased gun thefts from people who already have lots of illegally-acquired guns they are already using to kill each other and terrorize their communities.

But why are you limiting it to stealing only?  The traffic flow in the variety and types of guns would certainly increase in a legalization scheme in NY.  The criminals will have a bigger grocery store to shop from privately or via arms trafficking due to decreased transaction costs.  The guns will also cost cheaper as well.

MachineGhost wrote: No. At least, not if the entire rest of the country is any indication.

Do we really have any historical examples of a colored heavy, ultra liberal, anti gun, white elite state going to the opposite extreme post-Civil Rights?

MachineGhost wrote: But why are you limiting it to stealing only?  The traffic flow in the variety and types of guns would certainly increase in a legalization scheme in NY.  The criminals will have a bigger grocery store to shop from privately or via arms trafficking due to decreased transaction costs.  The guns will also cost cheaper as well.

I suppose you could argue that with more legal guns, that increases the pool of firearms which can be stolen, sold to criminals, etc. But, again, this would need to be weighed against the benefit of allowing the defenseless to defend themselves.

And, you know, the whole "deprivation of civil rights" thing. Because the Supreme Court twice ruled that second amendment means you can have a gun. It's a real grown-up civil right that cities can't just stomp on willy-nilly, not some chopped liver.

Finally the hobby aspect. When I owned a gun in New York, I didn't feel particularly threatened; it wasn't primarily for self-defense but rather for sport. If I'd lived one mile to the south, that would have been denied to me. There are a bunch of shooting ranges in and around NYC so it's not like the concept of guns in cities is inherently crazily dangerous.

MachineGhost wrote: Do we really have any historical examples of a colored heavy, ultra liberal, anti gun, white elite state going to the opposite extreme post-Civil Rights?

Yes. Washington D.C. (2008, Heller vs D.C.) and Chicago (2010, McDonald vs Chicago).

Washington D.C:


Chicago:


Looks like allowing guns in did nothing to halt the already-falling crime rates in either city.

Very cool!  I guess NYC needs to be taken to the Supreme Court for not following the law of the land.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:37 pm

WiseOne wrote: Maybe I'm against pretty much the entire board because I fundamentally don't understand why guns are such a sensitive issue.  Perhaps because they resemble a certain male body part.  I can't think of any other reason.

This is an oppressive misandrist position that shocks me when propounded by a woman who is otherwise a great asset to the board.

Libertarian666 caused me to look up the definition of "misandrist'! Had never prior encountered it and could not at all guess its meaning from the context in which it was used.

Vinny

MachineGhost wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:01 pm

moda0306 wrote: But the narrative of the RWNJ's isn't just a well-laid out logical claim.  There's an attitude about it that people can smell the grasps for masculinity all over.  And it turns them off... because those are the same guys cutting you off in their jacked pickup on the freeway, and calling for revolution in NV when some rancher gets challenged by the government.

Oh, baby!

[align=center][/align]

Does anyone know if this is a picture of the Forum's famed MachineGhost?

Vinny