View Full Version : Newtown School Shootings
Greyblades
12-19-2012, 18:22
Ah, if only.
Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.
Admittedly in those situations a rifle is the better option, (except for Henry VIII, guy was badass, an avid hunter in his youth, an ideal king before he turned sour and he had a mace with a gun installed in the head. Gaving him in the house when a robber turns up would be 100 times more useful than a 12 gague), though personally some form of legal safeguard, a burglar alarm system and a crossbow are preferable to a gun respectively. When thinking about the big picture, government, diplomacy, society, economics, etc a good, (just, noble, etc) king is infinitely preferable to an armed populous.
And I haven't been talking about that. I've been talking specifically about contemporary British monarchy.
Well you kinda have to think about the aspects of king hood when talking about a monarchy.
When thinking about the big picture, government, diplomacy, society, economics, etc a good, (just, noble, etc) king is infinitely preferable to an armed populous.
Can you provide a "big picture" example that would support this?
Well you kinda have to think about the aspects of king hood when talking about a monarchy.
And when talking about British monarchy wouldn't it be better to think its specific aspects?
... a figure head is just as useful as a good gun against a Apache...
riiiiight (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/50Helicopters.pdf)...
Catiline
12-19-2012, 19:02
riiiiight (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/50Helicopters.pdf)...
Reeeeeallly
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02393/harryAfghanistan_2393743b.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/08/29/li-harry-apache-620.jpg
Greyblades
12-19-2012, 19:10
Can you provide a "big picture" example that would support this?
Well when I think of a good king I think of the actions of George VI, when urged to leave the capital during the London blitz he refused on the grounds that it would be running away when his people were in danger, he even spent several nights sheltering alongside the "commoners" in the london underground, the king and his family going through the same hardships as the common man was a great morale boost and added to the myriad of other equally important factors that kept britain from surrendering to the Nazi's.
I honestly haven't seen anything as beneficial come out of having an armed populous when people being gunned down in the streets, their homes, thier schools, all by people I find hard to believe being able to do anywhere near as much damage in the almost gun-less Britain before being stopped by the authorities. We haven't had any school shootings since 1996, america has had 40. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States)
And when talking about British monarchy wouldn't it be better to think its specific aspects?
That too, but you need to at least be aware of what it is specifically supposed to do, which is look out for its people, a point of comparison when determining the success of each monarch. Good kings did this, bad kings generally didn't, you think America would have wanted to leave the empire so much if the British monarch wasnt insane and went to the front lines of the revolutonary war, taking part of each negotiation while treating the colonial Americans as if they were his countrymen (which they were at the time)?
Sir Moody
12-19-2012, 19:19
riiiiight (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/50Helicopters.pdf)...
are you seriously telling me you can buy 50 Cal armor piecing sniper rifles legally in the states?
wow... well I am sure that will make the militia members feel better as hellfire missiles are raining down on them - they at least can shoot back - assuming the Helicopter comes into range carelessly
Catiline
12-19-2012, 19:21
It might also be worth asking the Palestinians how guns vs Apaches is going for them.
Well when I think of a good king I think of the actions of George VI, when urged to leave the capital during the London blitz he refused on the grounds that it would be running away when his people were in danger, he even spent several nights sheltering alongside the "commoners" in the london underground, the king and his family going through the same hardships as the common man was a great morale boost and added to the myriad of other equally important factors that kept britain from surrendering to the Nazi's.
That was very kind of him, but I do not see any practical benefits of that action.
I honestly haven't seen anything as beneficial come out of having an armed populous when people being gunned down in the streets, their homes, thier schools, all by people I find hard to believe being able to do anywhere near as much damage in the almost gun-less Britain before being stopped by the authorities.
The gunless mob was able to go on a rampage because shopkeepers had no guns to protect their property. Looters and marauders are very effectively deterred by guns as happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. People organized armed neighborhood watch groups and put up the "You loot, we shoot" signs to ward off opportunists. Worked great for those neighborhoods where enough people were armed.
We haven't had any school shootings since 1996,america has had 40. With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?
are you seriously telling me you can buy 50 Cal armor piecing sniper rifles legally in the states?
wow... well I am sure that will make the militia members feel better as hellfire missiles are raining down on them - they at least can shoot back - assuming the Helicopter comes into range carelessly
Yes sir. You can legally buy a Barrett in all states except the People's Republic of California.
Catiline
12-19-2012, 19:34
With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?
The gun laws were all tightened up after Dunblane. Since then no shootings. Strange, isn't it.
The gun laws were all tightened up after Dunblane. Since then no shootings. Strange, isn't it.
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings) wasn't a shooting?
Yes sir. You can legally buy a Barrett in all states except the People's Republic of California.
is this in case the transformers invade?
Greyblades
12-19-2012, 19:47
That was very kind of him, but I do not see any practical benefits of that action.The blitz wast a battle of bombs it was a battle of public tolerance, if that tolerance was stretched too far people would have been refusing to work, pay taxes, go to war and the British would have been forced to withdraw from the war.
George's act that set the message of "we're all in this together", if he hadn't done it people would have been resentment about "royals sipping tea in thier palaces while we die". Look at what happened in the French revolution and the french Army mutiny of WW1 for what happens when people become resentful of their higher ups being in relative luxury while they suffer.
The gunless mob was able to go on a rampage because shopkeepers had no guns to protect their property. Looters and marauders are very effectively deterred by guns as happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. Firstly full scale disasters are the exception not the rule, second the mob was able to loot London because the british police proved ineffective and undermanned.
People organized armed neighborhood watch groups and put up the "You loot, we shoot" signs to ward off opportunists. Worked great for those neighborhoods where enough people were armed.Were there any "you loot we chase you down with baseball bats and 2x4s" that we can compare to? because it seems like the threat of guns could have been replaced with the threat of mob beating, like what the minority communities did during the London riots, which were about as successful.
With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?
Dunblane is the reason it is illegal to have personal firearms in the UK, the Firearms Amendment Act was introduced in 1997.
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings) wasn't a shooting? I only stated school shooting numbers, If I had included all shootings it would have been somewhere in the realm of 10000 in the USA and 20 in UK
The blitz wast a battle of bombs it was a battle of public tolerance, if that tolerance was stretched too far people would have been refusing to work, pay taxes, go to war and the British would have been forced to withdraw from the war.
George's act that set the message of "we're all in this together", if he hadn't done it people would have been resentment about "royals sipping tea in thier palaces while we die".
That's a pure speculation on your part.
Look at what happened in the French revolution...
Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.
Firstly full scale disasters are the exception not the rule, second the mob was able to loot London because the british police proved ineffective and undermanned.
Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.
Were there any "you loot we chase you down with baseball bats and 2x4s" that we can compare to? because it seems like the threat of guns could have been replaced with the threat of mob beating, like what the arab communities did during the London riots.
2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."
Dunblane is the reason it is illegal to have personal firearms in the UK, the Firearms Amendment Act was introduced in 1997.
I only stated school shooting numbers, If I had included all shootings it would have been somewhere in the realm of 10000 in the USA and 20 in UK
Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.
Catiline
12-19-2012, 20:03
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings) wasn't a shooting?
No shootings since then was wrong. But that Was done with legally held shotguns and .22 rifles, for which there are exceptions in the law. Its also more of a random rampage than a single mass shooting, so a different affair to try and stop.
Catiline
12-19-2012, 20:06
is this in case the transformers invade?
The transformers do come from hollywood...
No shootings since then was wrong. But that Was done with legally held shotguns and .22 rifles, for which there are exceptions in the law. Its also more of a random rampage than a single mass shooting, so a different affair to try and stop.
Does it matter? Either way people got shot and killed.
Catiline
12-19-2012, 20:07
Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.
Yes people still get shot. The point is that it's a gigantic proportion fewer of us.
Yes people still get shot. The point is that it's a gigantic proportion fewer of us.
If the state renders people unable to defend themselves, the state better be damn sure that it can make up for that. But that's the thing, it can't. Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either. Perceived public safety gain at the cost of total individual helplessness in the face of adversity. Hardly a worthwhile exchange.
Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either.
Strange, the most serious conflicts I've been in involved non-firearm weapons. Not having a gun does not equal unarmed. People manage to damage and even kill one another without gunpowder, it just requires a little more commitment.
Also note that the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are purchased, not stolen (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html). So even if the gun becomes "illegal" once a felon possesses it, the act of purchasing is usually done within our legal framework.
Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by (who else?) Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.
If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:
Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again
Catiline
12-19-2012, 20:23
Only in some Ayn Rand dystopia. It's a real and tangible increase in public safety, and besides its been clearly demonstrated that having a gun makes you less safe. You might be a bit less helpless, but your helping yourself to a greater chance of dead.
In regard to the mob looting thing, we have the right to defend ourselves using reasonable force. IMO shooting people to death, looters or not, to protect property is not reasonable.
Strange, the most serious conflicts I've been in involved non-firearm weapons. Not having a gun does not equal unarmed. People manage to damage and even kill one another without gunpowder, it just requires a little more commitment.
Guns are great equalizers though.
Also note that the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the USA were obtained legally.
As were guns used in preventing/stopping crimes.
Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by ... Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.
Exactly, coming from Drudge it's not really a shocker.
If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:
Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again
While you were away, the discussion in this thread has veered into "why allow any guns at all" territory along with "guns are only for the militia" line of thought.
Greyblades
12-19-2012, 20:31
That's a pure speculation on your part.
Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/bronnenbank.asp?aid=35657
Duty during the war for the King and Queen meant engagements around the country related to the war effort. These included visits to military units, civil defence workers, to factories, to farms and to hospitals. When the Blitz started the King and Queen visited bomb struck cities as soon as possible after the attacks. Very often this was in London especially in the East End. Buckingham Palace itself suffered nine direct hits. But this had the opposite effect to that which the Germans had intended. Britain now felt that their Royal Family shared their suffering and were united with the people.
Many people thought it too dangerous for the King and Queen to remain in London, but Queen Elizabeth said "the Princesses will not leave us, I cannot leave the King and the King will never leave." They worked from Buckingham Palace during the week, visiting Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret at Windsor Castle at the weekends.
Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.
Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.
Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.
2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation. And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.
Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.
Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with personal firearms.
Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/bronnenbank.asp?aid=35657
Visiting cities after the bombings? What's so heroic about it?
Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution
Is it in that hell now?
Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.
Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?
He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation.
And?
And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.
Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to do. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.
Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with public guns.
Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.
Greyblades
12-19-2012, 21:08
Is it in that hell now?
Doesn't matter. Britain was already where they are now and if the royal family hadn't done what they did britain would have gone through a similar hell.
Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?
No, but it will make them think twice about storming you long enough for the authorities to show up or for you to escape, if it doesn't make them decide to loot somewhere easier. Looters want loot, not blood.
And?Neither side in these situations are going to be using kind words, Also Kind words and tazers works just as well if you have a multi-shot stungun.
Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to die. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.
If the mob is willing to kill in america they are likely to have guns in this situation too, so one guy with a gun, assuming he's law abiding, is likely to get shot before he has a chance to finish shouting a warning anyway. If niether side has guns the one guy is about as screwed, though he has a better chance to run as he's not going to be shot in the back as he goes.
Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.
Then that makes you avoiding a proven improvement even more depressingly pointless.
Doesn't matter. Britain was already where they are now and if the royal family hadn't done what they did britain would have gone through a similar hell. What has the royal family done?
No, but it will make them think twice about storming you long enough for the authorities to show up or for you to escape, if it doesn't make them decide to loot somewhere easier. Looters want loot, not blood.
Just like they showed up in London and quickly quelled the violence and the looting.
Neither side in these situations are going to be using kind words, Also Kind words and tazers works just as well if you have a multi-shot stungun.
No, not really. Tazers rarely maim or kill and the crowd knows that.
If the mob is willing to kill in america they are likely to have guns in this situation too, so one guy with a gun, assuming he's law abiding, is likely to get shot before he has a chance to finish shouting a warning anyway. If niether side has guns the one guy is about as screwed, though he has a better chance to run as he's not going to be shot in the back as he goes.
A lynch mob would be armed, unlike a loot mob.
Then that makes you avoiding a proven improvement even more depressingly pointless.
One man's improvement is another man's disaster.
Don Corleone
12-19-2012, 21:37
Merry Christmas, Happy Chaunakah (belatedly), Happy New Year, and all the other raz-mataz. It's been a while since I've posted in the Org, and this thread seems as appropriate a reentry point as any.
I cried several times during the day on Friday. The very night before, I had attended a Christmas concert put on by the Kindergarten through 2nd grades (5-7) at my daughter's school. There were about 20 children on stage at a time, including for various portions, my own divine Miss J. I was heartsick, to the point of nausea, at the idea of each and every one of those lives being snuffed out.
People have made some really good points in this thread (I was careful to read as much of the 10 pages as I could prior to responding). People also posted some rather inane propositions, I think in some misguided effort to be 'clever'. Reminded me of my own antics in posting in the Backroom over the years.
Here's what I know:
-Our government has access to such high forms of technology that a discussion of "protecting our liberties from tyranny" is laughable. A cheaply made AR-15 or AK-47 clone isn't going to do a damn thing against a predator drone. The only thing that can defeat a tyrranical government is human spirit.
-An assault weapons ban will not end these tragedies. It will however make the likelihood of the severity significantly reduced. I own several guns for hunting and personal protection. I am 100% in favor background checks, restrictions placed on the capacity of guns, etc. I do not need an assault weapon, nor can I put forward a good reason why any private citizen would need one.
-Yes, illegal trade in restricted armaments will occur. What people fail to understand is that it is far easier to traffic narcotics than arms. I will no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue. I would like to eliminate gun violence. If I cannot, I will settle for reducing it, at the very least, reducing it's severity.
-I also know, courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, that large scale mass murder will still happen. But when you compare the number of fertilizer bombs to the number of mass shootings over the past 30 years or so, I think the data points to restricting firearms before one restricts lawn fertilizer.
-Yes, our country needs desparatetly to address our mental health issues. We have a lot of untreated mental illness. In reading about this tragedy, I uncovered a bone-chillingly disturbing fact: the 3 largest mental health facilities in the US are in Riker's, LA County Jail and Cook County Jail.
-Yet even more than mental illness, our society (and this extends outside the US) suffers from spiritual sickness. We have lost compassion, lost humanity. We do not value life. Regardless of the reasons we attribute, we have failed our young: failed to keep them safe, failed to make them whole, failed to make them see that they are a part of something greater than their finite selves.
I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...
I pray for us all. We have now evolved to a point where we are at a crisis point. Our technology and our knowledge have far oustripped our evolution and our wisdom. We MUST change, we MUST find a way to stop destroying each other and everything else upon this Earth, or we will cease to exist.
Greyblades
12-19-2012, 21:44
What has the royal family done? The current one, or the whole family tree?
Just like they showed up in London and quickly quelled the violence and the looting.
Yes and that is a critique of the authorities capacity to respond to mobs. Not lack of guns.
No, not really. Tazers rarely maim or kill and the crowd knows that.But they hurt, sometimes enough to render people unconscious or at least knock them over and their main problem is the same as a gun, fewer ammo than mob members, assuming we have a similar definition of mob.
A lynch mob would be armed, unlike a loot mob. Not always, and I already addressed the issues guns would cause in either of them.
Another shockingly reasonable post from Don C. Thanks, man.
You're quite correct, both the mental health and the deregulation of guns need to be reconsidered.
Deinstitutionalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation) needs to be re-examined. The extreme difficulty of involuntary commitment, and chronic underfunding of mental health services, are both obvious problems.
The loopholes in background checks for firearm purchases should be closed. Likewise, the extremely limited registration (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#nfa-firearms) of firearms needs to be expanded.
As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.
The current one, or the whole family tree?
The current one.
Yes and that is a critique of the authorities capacity to respond to mobs. Not lack of guns.
If the government is powerless, the people should be allowed to do what the government can't.
But they hurt, sometimes enough to render people unconscious or at least knock them over and their main problem is the same as a gun, fewer ammo than mob members, assuming we have a similar definition of mob.
Something that "hurts" isn't quite as scary as something that "kills".
Not always, and I already addressed the issues guns would cause in either of them.
Not always, but enough to make a difference.
Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by (who else?) Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.
Well, he is coming for our guns! ~;)
In all seriousness, there are several things that need to be done prior to putting the useless "assault weapons" ban back in place. The NRA and GOP only have themselves to blame for the PR disaster they are now in.
Item 1 - The neutering of the BATFE. Since the merry band of jack-booted thugs was moved to the Justice Dept in 2006, Senate confirmation has been required for it's Director. By sheer coincidence, the ATF has not had a director since 2006, with the GOP blocking confirmation of anyone to the left of Heston. Needless to say, the ATF's performance has been subpar, even for the ATF. Funding, training, and enforcement all need improvement, along with a large modernization effort needed for tracking sales. Before any new laws are put in place, is it too much to ask for a less-dysfunctional agency to enforce them?
I don't think any widespread ban is going to happen, the elections just happened and most of the senators and reps funded by the NRA will hold off hoping it all blows over by 2014. They do need to close the gun show gap, and maybe 10-round mag limit, but any law based on cosmetics deserves to fail. Whatever comes out of the "gun grab", I just want the restrictions to apply to the LEOs as well as the general public.
Edit->Welcome back Don! :bow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-19-2012, 22:41
Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.
We know - that's why your healthcare sucks.
An example of a Good King: Spain, after Franco'death Juan Carlos steered the country successfully towards democracy and prevented a violent Coup by a junta of Generals. He averted War - by it's very nature a good rifle would have encouraged it.
Papewaio
12-19-2012, 22:51
If the state renders people unable to defend themselves, the state better be damn sure that it can make up for that. But that's the thing, it can't. Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either. Perceived public safety gain at the cost of total individual helplessness in the face of adversity. Hardly a worthwhile exchange.
Define safety?
Longer lifespan? 78.49 years (US), 80.17 years (UK)
Infant Mortality? 6/1000 vs 4.5/1000
HIV/AIDS? 0.6% vs 0.2%
Obesity? 33.9% vs 22.7%
Prisoners? 730 vs 154 per 100,000
Intentional Homicides? 4.2 vs 1.2 per 100,000
Economic Freedom (WSJ)? 76.3 vs 74.1 (higher is better)
a completely inoffensive name
12-19-2012, 22:58
Yes, US society suffers from spiritual sickness. I long for the days of old when Americans took the time to help each other
Unless they were black
or Hispanic
or Asian
or gay
or left leaning (which equals communist)
or not christian
or female
All of us white, male Christians have not been successful in preventing white, male Christians from going berserk. Society as a whole is tainted.
Don Corleone
12-19-2012, 23:05
I apologize if my post implied that a nostalgia for the days of segregation or other social ills. That wasn't my intent. Perhaps we've always been rotten to the core, and it only appears worse at this period of history because this is the only one I've lived through. My intent was to point to deficient compassion and love of one's fellow man as the primary culprit in many of our current social woes, including school shootings.
No offense intended.
a completely inoffensive name
12-19-2012, 23:41
I apologize if my post implied that a nostalgia for the days of segregation or other social ills. That wasn't my intent. Perhaps we've always been rotten to the core, and it only appears worse at this period of history because this is the only one I've lived through. My intent was to point to deficient compassion and love of one's fellow man as the primary culprit in many of our current social woes, including school shootings.
No offense intended.
No offense taken. I completely agree we need more compassion and love. I just want to keep things in perspective. In many ways, society is better than it ever has been, not just in material things. But we can and should always strive to be better, no need to compare ourselves to the past to spur that drive.
“Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.”
You should read a little more about the French Revolution, and not the only the conventional one.:stare:
France was in hell thanks to Kings and consorts who just pillage it. Versailles is beautiful, but it ruined France. And I even don’t want to speak of wars raged by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and XVI. At least, the XIV intended to “unite” France.
The French Revolution created a shock still felt nowadays, in France and in the rest of the World.
In France, it meant abolition of the privileges (August the 4th), Republic with the UNIVERSAL Human Rights, suppression of the Nobility, end of Religious domination, first abolition of Slavery (cancelled by Napoleon), 1st Constitution and new legal system (known under Code Napoleon). We can add the universal measuring system…
The Civil Wars were first due to the “levee en masse”, thanks to the Foreign Invasions from all the European Monarchies. Without these Foreign Interventions (we would call them containment, or pre-emptive) , no repression needed, no Napoleon…
And France became what it is now because the French Revolution. It is too long to develop, but France is France not because a territory (changed during the centuries), language (we had different local ones) or ethnicities. France is a political construction based on a shared idea, roughly Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
And to end this paragraph, The English Civil War was as bloody, violent and nasty than the French Revolution.
Define safety?
Longer lifespan? 78.49 years (US), 80.17 years (UK)
Infant Mortality? 6/1000 vs 4.5/1000
HIV/AIDS? 0.6% vs 0.2%
Obesity? 33.9% vs 22.7%
Prisoners? 730 vs 154 per 100,000
Intentional Homicides? 4.2 vs 1.2 per 100,000
Economic Freedom (WSJ)? 76.3 vs 74.1 (higher is better)
Individual's ability to protect himself of course. What else?
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 00:14
It's called society were we look out for each other.
By those stats UK is outperforming US
For instance in the US individuals are three times more likely to be murdered or have HIV & four times more likely to die of HIV.
Quality of life is diminished when ones health is negatively impacted. So with 50% more Obesity and a third more infant deaths ones quality of life is suffering. More diabetes, strokes, heart attacks in the older population and more early deaths in the younger. Add to that four times the rate of incarceration which is an intentional diminishing of life quality.
So you have a society with a measurably shorter lifespan and less quality of life per annum.
I prefer measuring outcomes over intentions. UK society outpaces US individualism on virtually every metric.
Greyblades
12-20-2012, 00:22
“Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.”
You should read a little more about the French Revolution, and not the only the conventional one.:stare:
France was in hell thanks to Kings and consorts who just pillage it. Versailles is beautiful, but it ruined France. And I even don’t want to speak of wars raged by Louis XIV, Louis XV, and XVI. At least, the XIV intended to “unite” France.
The French Revolution created a shock still felt nowadays, in France and in the rest of the World.
In France, it meant abolition of the privileges (August the 4th), Republic with the UNIVERSAL Human Rights, suppression of the Nobility, end of Religious domination, first abolition of Slavery (cancelled by Napoleon), 1st Constitution and new legal system (known under Code Napoleon). We can add the universal measuring system…
The Civil Wars were first due to the “levee en masse”, thanks to the Foreign Invasions from all the European Monarchies. Without these Foreign Interventions (we would call them containment, or pre-emptive) , no repression needed, no Napoleon…
And France became what it is now because the French Revolution. It is too long to develop, but France is France not because a territory (changed during the centuries), language (we had different local ones) or ethnicities. France is a political construction based on a shared idea, roughly Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
And to end this paragraph, The English Civil War was as bloody, violent and nasty than the French Revolution.
I'm not sure what your problem is, as I said life was rubbish for the french poor before the revolution it was even worse for every frenchman during and, for a time, after and the main cause was the disparity between the classes, my point was that this was in mind when George 6th decided to risk the blitz and an indication of what might have happened if they had stayed in safety and comfort.
I prefer measuring outcomes over intentions. UK society outpaces US individualism on virtually every metric.
I'm glad to hear that Britain is to your liking, because America is to my liking.
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 00:35
I'm glad to hear that Britain is to your liking, because America is to my liking.
You were debating that individual access to firearms in the US makes for a safer society compared with the UK.
These are mainly stats from the Stalinist group called the CIA Factbook and Wall Street Journal.
In short your statement is long on rhetoric short on facts.
If I tabled the US vs Aus stats you would be even worse off.
You were debating that individual access to firearms in the US makes for a safer society compared with the UK.
I was stating that in America individuals have better ways of protecting themselves due to their access to firearms. Something that your statistics do not dispute in the slightest.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2012, 01:02
I was stating that in America individuals have better ways of protecting themselves due to their access to firearms. Something that your statistics do not dispute in the slightest.
The statistics prove that a stable state is better protection than individual armaments - America needs proper law enforcement, rather than the medieval, litterally, system you have now.
There's a reason shire reeves only administer Courts in the UK and elsewhere - professional Policemen are better.
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 01:17
Better protection would mean better outcomes.
US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.
If you were safer you would suffer less murders. The statistics plainly state you are not.
4.2 vs 1.2. Not just homicides by guns, all homicides. If you were safer you would be less likely to be killed by a criminal.
To put this in perspective 3.5 x 4.2 = 14.7/100,000
Or looking at the table somewhere between Nicaragua and Mexico.
So UK is to US, what US is to Mexico when it comes to being murdered.
In other words you are not better protected. A UK person moving to US for protection is like a US person moving to Mexico for protection.
Better protection would mean better outcomes.
The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.
Rhyfelwyr
12-20-2012, 01:41
First off, I haven't read beyond the first 2 pages and this last one, so sorry...
I don't think this the primary angle on this tragedy should be with gun access or mental health services. Obviously, these do tie into it on some level, but I think the main issue is something else entirely - the development of mass shootings as a cultural phenomena.
You can compare levels of gun access or mental health care in the US with other developed countries, but those differences will never come close to explaining why such a specific sort of event seems to occur so frequrently in the USA. I think the most useful thing we can do right now is try to understand why this phenomena and from there hopefully find a solution to put and end to it.
What can we understand from it at the minute? Well I'm too ignorant to say give an opinion right now. Although I would be curious to see how many of the shooters fit the profile of a young male, shy, no friends, seen as a 'loser' etc. IIRC the ones at Columbine High and Virginia Tech fitted it anyway.
With the above in mind I'll refrain from commenting on the gun control debate, but for what its worth a similar event in Scotland (although a one-off that didn't fit the above stereotype) with the Dunblane massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre) did directly lead to significant restrictions on gun ownership. Of course, I realise that the political culture in the USA is different. Although I will say that I find the idea of arming primary school teachers or staff to be pretty scary. Has it really come to that?
...With the above in mind I'll refrain from commenting on the gun control debate, but for what its worth a similar event in Scotland (although a one-off that didn't fit the above stereotype) with the Dunblane massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre) did directly lead to significant restrictions on gun ownership. Of course, I realise that the political culture in the USA is different. Although I will say that I find the idea of arming primary school teachers or staff to be pretty scary. Has it really come to that?
Teachers don't need guns, they need tazers instead.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2012, 01:46
The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.
So you're saying that without guns in private hands even more US citizens would be murdered each year?
That would mean your violent crime rate is artificially low, compared to the UK - i.e. America is, by your argument, an even more dangerous place than the statistics suggest.
So you're saying that without guns in private hands even more US citizens would be murdered each year?
What I'm saying is that without guns more people would get robbed, raped, carjacked, more houses would get broken into.
While we're on the topic, I present to you Gun Town, USA (http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/). The article is a bit old, but the idea stands.
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 01:55
The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.
You also have four times as many people in prison so plainly the deterrent factor isn't working. Again rhetoric meets reality.
You also have four times as many people in prison so plainly the deterrent factor isn't working. Again rhetoric meets reality.
Kennesaw, Georgia begs to differ.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2012, 02:11
What I'm saying is that without guns more people would get robbed, raped, carjacked, more houses would get broken into.
While we're on the topic, I present to you Gun Town, USA (http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/). The article is a bit old, but the idea stands.
Except - you already have more of that than any Western country, so maybe the guns aren't helping.
If it's easy for me to get a gun it's even easier for a car-jacker to get a gun because he can break the law, and he's going to have less compunction about using it and he's going into the situation with it ready, where I have to draw mine. I've lost before I even decided to draw or not.
Except - you already have more of that than any Western country, so maybe the guns aren't helping.
We're also bigger than any other Western country.
If it's easy for me to get a gun it's even easier for a car-jacker to get a gun because he can break the law, and he's going to have less compunction about using it and he's going into the situation with it ready, where I have to draw mine. I've lost before I even decided to draw or not.
Why draw right away? Give him the car keys, then pump him full of lead as soon as he tuns his back. He'll be dead before he realizes what's going on.
PanzerJaeger
12-20-2012, 03:36
If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:
Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again
Can we please dispense with this 'absolutist' moniker? I understand that it is always beneficial in debate to frame your opponent as some sort of extremist, but this is nonsense. Guns are one of the most heavily regulated products in the American marketplace. There are limits on functionality, size, ammunition type and many other design elements that essentially neuter these weapons as compared to their military counterparts. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another product that requires a background check to purchase. Certain types of chemicals, maybe? To the true absolutist, such things would be intolerable. And yet, no one here seems to be seriously arguing against them. In fact, I would wager most here would be supportive of a national registry for the mentally ill that could be crosschecked during the background check process.
But yes, allowing the actions of two mentally disturbed men to curtail the freedoms millions currently enjoy would be an illogical, immature reaction to media sensationalism, a superficial gesture that would do little to prevent such incidents in the future.
Crazed Rabbit
12-20-2012, 04:33
US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.
The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)
Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.
If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:
Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again
In Response -
1) They are not inevitable, but they are extremely rare. Not having extreme media coverage would help more than any gun ban. But what all the assault ban proponents want is to ban millions of firearms owned by millions of people because a couple people per year - at most - in a country of over 300 million people abuse them. That is not rational.
2) Registration? That would have no effect at all on shootings - and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns (and yes, some US states have confiscated certain guns after early mandating registration). Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right - and again have been abused by governments for the express purpose of denying as many people as possible from owning guns.
If you want to bring up rights lost in the War on Terror - like the Patriot Act - you should certainly realize that these rights are lost when there are knee jerk reactions to very emotional events.
3) This is a bit of a strawman. Yes, I think we Americans need to learn not to demand government "Do Something" or that "There oughta be a law" every time something bad happens, as though every bad thing can be fixed with more government. Attempted mass shootings (At least one off the top of my head - the church in Colorado) have been stopped by armed citizens. I think how society approaches mental health and how the media glamorizes these events are much more important things to discuss.
-Our government has access to such high forms of technology that a discussion of "protecting our liberties from tyranny" is laughable. A cheaply made AR-15 or AK-47 clone isn't going to do a damn thing against a predator drone. The only thing that can defeat a tyrranical government is human spirit.
-An assault weapons ban will not end these tragedies. It will however make the likelihood of the severity significantly reduced. I own several guns for hunting and personal protection. I am 100% in favor background checks, restrictions placed on the capacity of guns, etc. I do not need an assault weapon, nor can I put forward a good reason why any private citizen would need one.
-Yes, illegal trade in restricted armaments will occur. What people fail to understand is that it is far easier to traffic narcotics than arms. I will no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue. I would like to eliminate gun violence. If I cannot, I will settle for reducing it, at the very least, reducing it's severity.
-I also know, courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, that large scale mass murder will still happen. But when you compare the number of fertilizer bombs to the number of mass shootings over the past 30 years or so, I think the data points to restricting firearms before one restricts lawn fertilizer.
Again, in response:
1) This is inaccurate, based on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Uprisings, etc.
2) Again I disagree. The Columbine shootings happened after the first ban. The VT shootings (were more people - and college students at that, thus more difficult to kill - were killed) were committed by a madman with pistols. There is no reason to think an assault weapons ban would limit shootings. It's like the moronic TSA banning certain items and thinking potential terrorists won't shift to other weapons. Magazine limits will not work - changing magazines is a matter of seconds, and will limit good people who are not carry around a dozen magazines more than shooters who can prepare as much as they like.
Part two - the fact that you do not need or want a semi-auto rifle, and are therefore okay with banning them for everyone, saddens me. We live in a free country where no one should have to put forth a 'reason' they want to exercise a right. Back to response (1), I do believe access to modern firearms is an essential part of a free country and preventing tyranny. They are not everything, of course, but the human spirit needs teeth.
3) Maybe it easier to traffic drugs. But it's much easier to manufacture guns, of varying quality, anywhere. And handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected. Gun control doesn't work at reducing "handgun violence". We should not sacrifice liberty for safety. The past has shown us we will end up with neither.
4) The data points to the fact that mass murder via firearms is exceedingly rare and it's only an issue because of media sensationalism and human's irrational response to fear and risk. And if all firearms magically disappeared, what would stop some deranged lunatic from attacking a school with huge amounts of gasoline?
I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...
Your compassion is inspiring. :bow:
Likewise, the extremely limited registration of firearms needs to be expanded.
No, it doesn't. What point would that serve besides suppressing legal gun ownership? You mock the suggestion that 'Obama's coming for your guns' but he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and you want to
As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.
Gun ownership is a right and should not be subject to government demands before you are allowed to exercise it. Safety training and record keeping would do nothing to prevent these sprees.
I have yet to see any gun control proposal that would actually prevent mass murder and is based on a rational view of the country and not a knee jerk reaction hysteria.
CR
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 05:01
Eleven thousand gun homicides per year.
9/11 every four months
War of Independence every eight months
Civil War every 21 years
World War I every ten years
World War II every 37 years
Holocaust every 60 years
Vietnam War every 5 years
Afghanistan (2001 to now) 2 months. In other words for every American soldier who has died on the battlefield, vehicle crash, IED : sixty Americans have been shot dead by a fellow American.
I'm not so sure it is a knee jerk reaction when you are losing a person every day to gun homicide let alone over one an hour.
Ironside
12-20-2012, 10:02
-Yet even more than mental illness, our society (and this extends outside the US) suffers from spiritual sickness. We have lost compassion, lost humanity. We do not value life. Regardless of the reasons we attribute, we have failed our young: failed to keep them safe, failed to make them whole, failed to make them see that they are a part of something greater than their finite selves.
Welcome back Don. :bow:
I'm curious, in what form do you say this spiritual sickness is?
Been too used to see it as people claiming it as a lack of Christianity, that's why I reacted. Personally, I would blame social structures. If people suffer, they'll spread it, either intentionally or as a side effect. That's a huge issue in the US, agreed (armed guards in US schools isn't that uncommon in some areas).
4) The data points to the fact that mass murder via firearms is exceedingly rare and it's only an issue because of media sensationalism and human's irrational response to fear and risk. And if all firearms magically disappeared, what would stop some deranged lunatic from attacking a school with huge amounts of gasoline?
Yes? It's an extremely rare crime to burn down a school with people still inside it (it happens by evening or night normally). It's also very clumpsy to use.
Why do you have more schools shootings than the rest of the west? More gun crimes? More police killings?
Something is simply making US more aggressive than the rest of the west. The gun culture reflects that and influences it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2012, 10:24
We're also bigger than any other Western country.
Statistics take this into account - they are per capita, not raw numbers. The US has by far and away more deaths from firearms, per hundred thousand, than anywhere in Europe.
Why draw right away? Give him the car keys, then pump him full of lead as soon as he tuns his back. He'll be dead before he realizes what's going on.
And you'll be spending the rest of your life in gaol for murder, and rightly too.
The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)
Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.
Yes, arbitrarily cutting out a large number of murders from the total reduces the total. Well done :laugh4:
rory_20_uk
12-20-2012, 11:00
The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)
Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.
So... compare the killings in Europe with gangs included to those in the USA without...
Given how restricted guns are in many European countries this will likely make the difference even greater.
~:smoking:
HopAlongBunny
12-20-2012, 11:13
Honestly, keep your guns: knock yourselves out :)
a completely inoffensive name
12-20-2012, 11:18
Good question to ask is who exactly shares the top spots in the gun deaths list besides the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Gee, El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama. In fact, with the exception of swaziland and a few others, the vast majority of the countries at the top are all in the Americas.
Looks to me that we are simply reaping the benefits of our war on drugs. Latin America has become a battle ground over drugs and the blood inevitably spills over to where the selling actually goes on. No wonder out of all the countries in the Americas, Canada which the least involved in the war has the lowest death rate from guns.
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 11:27
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.
So the actual homicide rate is closer to 16k not 11k and the rate per 100k people is 4.8 not 4.2
Also the gang murders are 12%.
So 12% off 4.8 goes back to almost 4.2. Wow still 3.5 times that of UK.
If I was told to year a helmet that would make me die 3.5 times more likely then without it, I would be questioning the manufacturers motivation in proclaiming it was for my protection. I would also tell him were to shove said helmet and that I don't care for his scare tactics.
a completely inoffensive name
12-20-2012, 11:47
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.
So the actual homicide rate is closer to 16k not 11k and the rate per 100k people is 4.8 not 4.2
Also the gang murders are 12%.
So 12% off 4.8 goes back to almost 4.2. Wow still 3.5 times that of UK.
If I was told to year a helmet that would make me die 3.5 times more likely then without it, I would be questioning the manufacturers motivation in proclaiming it was for my protection. I would also tell him were to shove said helmet and that I don't care for his scare tactics.
FBI statistics also show a 46.76% drop in the violent crime rate since 1991. What do you make of that?
EDIT: The murder rate decreased even further, by 51% over two decades.
rory_20_uk
12-20-2012, 12:41
FBI statistics also show a 46.76% drop in the violent crime rate since 1991. What do you make of that?
EDIT: The murder rate decreased even further, by 51% over two decades.
Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2012, 12:58
What is the population difference of the most at risk groups of perpetration and victimization? If blacks commit 8 times the murders of their white counterparts and Hispanics commit some other multiplier above, what multiplier of blacks and hispanics does the US have over the UK as a percentage of the population? 2x? 3x? 8x? 15x?
White people have a higher statistical success rate at gun related homicide, but black people have more practice. Some discussion of demographics when reviewing the rate out of 100k is in order. More homogeneous societies where the history of poverty from immigration and racism is modern are expected to have lower rates. Prove me wrong. None of this is to say that white people wouldn't have such high homicide rates if they were in similar situations of poverty, but the number must be controlled for this if we are comparing. Apples to apples!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=white%20black%20and%20latino%20homicide%20rates%20why%20the%20difference&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rci.rutgers.edu%2F~roos%2FCourses%2Fgrstat502%2Fphillipssp802.pdf&ei=JgXTUPeiHsXv0gH-2ICYDQ&usg=AFQjCNFarj6YFZ8HotosssXA5A74WTKGSg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ
rory_20_uk
12-20-2012, 13:12
Prove you wrong? You've not offered anything to prove you right!
Control numbers of what exactly? Unless you can offer some evidence that the mere colour of one's skin makes one shoot others then I'm at a loss to the point of what you're saying.
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2012, 13:50
I'm on a tablet, but I posted a link to a Rutgers study from 2002
What is the population difference of the most at risk groups of perpetration and victimization? If blacks commit 8 times the murders of their white counterparts and Hispanics commit some other multiplier above, what multiplier of blacks and hispanics does the US have over the UK as a percentage of the population? 2x? 3x? 8x? 15x?
White people have a higher statistical success rate at gun related homicide, but black people have more practice. Some discussion of demographics when reviewing the rate out of 100k is in order. More homogeneous societies where the history of poverty from immigration and racism is modern are expected to have lower rates. Prove me wrong. None of this is to say that white people wouldn't have such high homicide rates if they were in similar situations of poverty, but the number must be controlled for this if we are comparing. Apples to apples!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=white%20black%20and%20latino%20homicide%20rates%20why%20the%20difference&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rci.rutgers.edu%2F~roos%2FCourses%2Fgrstat502%2Fphillipssp802.pdf&ei=JgXTUPeiHsXv0gH-2ICYDQ&usg=AFQjCNFarj6YFZ8HotosssXA5A74WTKGSg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ
So you are saying that the US has more blacks than the UK, so naturally has more murders? Nice!
And you'll be spending the rest of your life in gaol for murder, and rightly too.
Maybe in England, but not here.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-20-2012, 13:59
...Afghanistan (2001 to now) 2 months. In other words for every American soldier who has died on the battlefield, vehicle crash, IED : sixty Americans have been shot dead by a fellow American.
To be fair, you need to add in the suicides as well. Suicides by gun outnumber the killing of others greatly (FBI Crime Report Statistics note 11,101 homicides by gun and 19,766 suicides; 14,612 murders in 2011 [last year tabulated] of which 9,903 were murdered by gunfire; guns feature in 68% of all murders and 41% of all armed robberies). It is difficult to argue against the evidence that, with all the guns available to our citizens and residents, the number of deaths is enhanced. Absent guns, a sizeable percentage of the 9,903 murders would have been attacks with some other and less lethal method. Moreover, without ready access to firearms, a noteable percentage of those suicides would have likely not happened because there was no "easy" means of suicide readily available.
The problem, at its core, is that firearms are available on a scale unimaginable to many. That same FBI report estimates that the 314 millions then living in the USA had about 310 million firearms -- not including those possessed by the military. This is the core problem because it makes confiscation functionally impossible [a literal order of magnitude more difficult than deporting the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants]. And, despite all the best intentions of limited magazine capacity, on banning so-called assault weaponry, and performing background checks, it is only confiscation that could significantly reduce the number of firearms. Ain't gonna happen.
There you go, a totally non-2A comment on this issue.
Don:
Merry Christmas to you and your ladies.
Mental health funding etc. will be increasing significantly over the next couple of decades as we shift to nationalized health care. It is the underlying problem in almost all of these mass shootings -- violent depressive types are the most dangerous of all.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2012, 14:01
Good question to ask is who exactly shares the top spots in the gun deaths list besides the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Gee, El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama. In fact, with the exception of swaziland and a few others, the vast majority of the countries at the top are all in the Americas.
Looks to me that we are simply reaping the benefits of our war on drugs. Latin America has become a battle ground over drugs and the blood inevitably spills over to where the selling actually goes on. No wonder out of all the countries in the Americas, Canada which the least involved in the war has the lowest death rate from guns.
Europe also, largely, participates in the "war" on drugs, and we have gang violence - but still fewer homicides. Consider the Zinmmerman thread - one American shot another in a restaurant after they got into an argument and he was shoved.
Gangs aren't your problem, nor are the number of guns (there are more per capita in Canada) the issue is your attitude to guns.
I mean, hell's bells, who on earth needs a SCAR for hunting unless he's hunting men?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2012, 14:04
Maybe in England, but not here.
You shot him in the back - that's got to be First Degree Murder.
Don Corleone
12-20-2012, 14:05
Welcome back Don. :bow: Thank you , to you and to others.
I'm curious, in what form do you say this spiritual sickness is?
Been too used to see it as people claiming it as a lack of Christianity, that's why I reacted. Personally, I would blame social structures. If people suffer, they'll spread it, either intentionally or as a side effect. That's a huge issue in the US, agreed (armed guards in US schools isn't that uncommon in some areas).
I'm not prepared to frown upon any religion, as I believe they all have something to offer. Some of the guys I hang out with say "Religion is for people that don't want to go to Hell... Spirituality is for people who have already been". I'm not sure that I would go quite that far, but to answer your question directly... We are driven by "self", individually and even collectively. Our own identities, our own egos are far more important to us than others are. Even when we're trying to be charitable, it is "I am being generous." It never occurs to us that we gain more in the exchange than the recipient. I'm describing some of the symptoms I see, not the malady itself, but I hope it helps.
You shot him in the back - that's got to be First Degree Murder.
No, I killed a criminal who tried to rob me, it's justifiable homicide.
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2012, 14:19
If it is a fact that blacks and hispanics commit the disproportionate share of homicides in the U.S., then any comparison of rates nation to nation must take into consideration these factors to be accurate (among others). You know it is reasonable to suggest that the numbers are not a fair measure. These groups also tend to live in areas with the most intense gun control, yet their rates are still that much higher. Not all blacks, not most blacks, but a statistically significant portion of those committing homicide year to year. Peoples perception of the color of their skin most likely was the main reason why they are an at-risk population and this terrible, but it doesn't change the reality. American society has unfairly disenfranchised blacks for years and we are paying a price for it when a population that has serious cultural issue to face. We did an enormous amount to create that problem, but it is still a problem.
Since when did ideas have to nice? By forum standards they must be written with courtesy, but that shouldn't get in the way of facts. What is your response, Idaho and Rory?
Don Corleone
12-20-2012, 14:38
Don:
Merry Christmas to you and your ladies.
Mental health funding etc. will be increasing significantly over the next couple of decades as we shift to nationalized health care. It is the underlying problem in almost all of these mass shootings -- violent depressive types are the most dangerous of all.
Thank you Seamus. A very Merry Christmas to you and to your family as well.
While I suspect that you are correct, a significantly higher level of funding will be steered into mental health, I believe little real good will be done. Healthcare (including mental health care) is an industry. Sure, we'll wind up with a bunch more thorazine zombies roaming the streets. But will we have solved anything?
I think we need to address root cause, not symptoms. Else, all we're doing is exchanging one negative outcome for another.
rory_20_uk
12-20-2012, 14:39
There is a monumental difference between correlation and causation. I would like to see a proper multivariate analysis to see what are the independent risk factors in different countries. I'm betting that loads-a-guns plays a greater determinant on the odds ratio. As has been so oft stated, getting angry with one's fists or a knife makes killing people a lot harder than with a gun.
There is also the fact that there are groups disenfranchised in Europe.
America has free borders between states. Local restrictions would only mean something if there were regular stop and searches with confiscation of weaponry with a large fine.
I'm still not seeing facts. I prefer peer reviewed research.
~:smoking:
I just think that I will never understand you Americans. You seem bonkers to me much of the time.
So you are saying that the US has more blacks than the UK, so naturally has more murders? Nice!I'm not prepared to speculate on the "whys", but the murder rate among our black population and among the UK's black population is many times higher than the white populations in their corresponding countries. In the US, the homicide rate by race of the perpetrator is over 7x higher for blacks than whites (24.7/100,000 vs 3.4/100,000 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/htus8008.txt)). The US is about 66% white, the UK is about 85% white.
I didn't readily find the comparable rates in the UK, but I do see that Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics) says that blacks are only 2.7% of the general population (over 10) in the UK, but 13.7% of the prison population.
NOTE:
Correlation is not causation- and I'm not attempting to make any argument to that effect. The reason I bring these statistics up is to demonstrate that straight up homicide rate comparisons between relatively homogenous European countries and the more heterogeneous US population are not particularly meaningful.
Can we please dispense with this 'absolutist' moniker? [...] this is nonsense.
Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right [...] Gun ownership is a right and should not be subject to government demands before you are allowed to exercise it. Safety training and record keeping would do nothing to prevent these sprees.
I have yet to see any gun control proposal that would actually prevent mass murder and is based on a rational view of the country and not a knee jerk reaction hysteria.
Note CR's self-conflicting mish-mash of reasoning, beginning with how any regulation is impractical, but always coming back to how any regulation is a violation of fundamental rights and an imposition of the Nanny State. (So why bother to argue the practicality in the first place, if we're proceeding from a priori truths?)
From CR's stated perspective, there is no regulation of firearms in the U.S.A. that can ever be legitimate. Or of there is, he's avoiding mentioning it. How is that not "absolutist"? Or at least a very good imitation of absolutism?
The NRA, for that matter, appears to have no "end game" beyond unlimited access to firearms for pretty much everyone. Yes, they make occasional noises about the insane and criminals, but none of their proposed legislation would mitigate against either, and things such as the gun show loophole (which they fight strenuously to maintain) put a hole below the waterline in their credibility.
Anyway, we'll see. The NRA says it's going to hold a presser tomorrow. Let's see if they have anything more interesting to say than "more guns" or "OBUMMER DIKKKTATOR GONNA DERK UHR GEHNS."
Anyway, we'll see. The NRA says it's going to hold a presser tomorrow. Let's see if they have anything more interesting to say than "more guns" or "OBUMMER DIKKKTATOR GONNA DERK UHR GEHNS."
the first indications show they are gonna try to throw videogames and movies under the train.
the first indications show they are gonna try to throw videogames and movies under the train.
Reminds me of a case a few years back. Some kid was playing with a toy gun in the street, and some passer by decided he was in danger, so took out his real gun and shot the kid. The end result was:
Toy guns were banned
As I say. I just won't ever understand Americans.
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2012, 18:39
I find it amusing that the ACLU, who are 1st emendment absolutists and often despised by the religious right and some others on the right for being "liberals", essnetially function in the same manner as the NRA.
I also find it funny that the ACLU helped kill a bill in conncecticut a few weeks prior to the shooting that would have been a fairly comprehensive overhaul of mental health in the state, but was killed by the state democratic state legislature, the ACLU arguing that it would bring back involuntary commitments and it would violate privacy by making mental health records available for more prying eyes.
And I find it endlessly funny that in peoples fantasy discussions of a civil war or tyrant us government, they seem to forget that the us military is made up of a diverse demographic of american citizens, and that any sort of wholesale oppression or slaughter of the population would entail many instances of high end military equipment and vehicles disappearing and showing up on the side of the "insurgents." In other words, the talk of whether our guns would or would not work is largely moot.
I find it amusing that the ACLU, who are 1st emendment absolutists [...] essnetially function in the same manner as the NRA.
There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9a4K3481B0&t=1m26s).
Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).
Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms (http://www.cabelas.com/gun-safes.shtml), you are an unbelievable idiot—a danger to yourself and your community. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2012, 19:47
There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9a4K3481B0&t=1m26s).
Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).
Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms, you are an unbelievable idiot. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.
The problem with the "its a mental health issue" is that some of those who I hear parroting this (not referring to anyone here, but rather the pundits and pols) are also people who are opposed to things like not allowing veterans with severe PTSD to own guns, and not allowing felons to live in homes with otherwise legally owned guns. If in fact we take the mental health approach from both a treatment perspective but also from a reporting perspective (i.e. database *shiver*) then this may be a workable solution. However, I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.
And a workable solution is also going to have to involve the involuntary commitment of people deemed mentally unstable. does something like this run the risk of being abused? absolutely, it was in the past (politics, agendas, grudges) and it will be again. but to parrot the supporters of the patriot act, "well, my party won't abuse it!" amirite??
So lets start bartering one set of freedoms for another. Thats what this comes down to. Can't have our cake and eat it, too.
I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.
Oh, the NRA has done better than that. It's illegal for ATF to release any statistical information about makes, models, or types of guns used in crimes. No specifics, mind you, just statistics, and it's been illegal since 2003. Thanks, guys.
Also illegal for CDC to fund any health studies that include fierarms as a metric. Not discouraged, not directed, illegal.
It's bullhockey like this that makes me think the NRA has absolutely no interest in rights, reason, or law. Just moar guns, please. I'd be interested to see how much of their money comes from industry, but wait, that sort of reporting is also illegal (http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/15/the-nras-shakedown-on-campaign-finance-reform/). For the NRA, and nobody else. Gotta love laws written with specific "carve outs" for single organizations.
The NRA's financial resources (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/) also outstrip any other voice in the gun discussion by a factor of approximately 100-1. Illustration:
https://i.imgur.com/lFmud.jpg
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2012, 20:01
Right, well all of that is stupid. You want new legislation, start there and I can back it. MRD, I could back better recognition of the dangers of mental illness, such as mandatory discussions with people like Lanzas mom who are attempting to have family members civilly committed that they have the option to have their guns kept out of the home until the resolution, otherwise face jailtime should shtf.
A little more detail on just how much the NRA doesn't want pesky scientists analyzing pesky data: (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-science-on-gun-violence/#h[])
[A]mazingly — there is no current scientific consensus about guns and violence. The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, “Firearms and Violence,” sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don’t know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches — from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws — are likely to work. The panel’s primary recommendation was simply: “If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue.” Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, “The main thrust of it is, we don’t know anything about anything, and more research is needed.”
In the years since the 2004 report, research on firearms has, despite the panel’s recommendation, significantly decreased. According to a 2011 Times article, researchers in the field report that “the amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result.”
It’s not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don’t know how to study guns’ connection to violence. It’s rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes. As The Times reported, “Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.”
As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004. There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus. [...]
[I]f we want an enduring transformation, this is the time to insist on an end to the N.R.A.’s cynical blockade of scientific research on guns and violence. The organization has announced that it plans “meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again” and holds a press conference on Friday to detail its ideas. Giving up resistance to gun research should at the top of its list.
Papewaio
12-20-2012, 21:08
Freedom of Speech is trumped by commerical interests/lobby groups? Say it isn't so.
I think an American reporter who is prepared to go to a foreign war zone or report on the next watergate should be prepared to do the 'illegal' thing here and get these stats reported.
=][=
If prohibition of guns doesn't work apply that logic outward.
Decriminalize drugs. Auto smashes the drug cartels.
Tax the pharmas that make the legal high grade versions (mental health tax).
Increase awareness of mental health, remove the stigma.
Get physically more healthy. Increases mental health, increases the odds that the population can actually overthrow a tyrannical dictator. In the mean time increase length and quality of life.
I think an American reporter who is prepared to go to a foreign war zone or report on the next watergate should be prepared to do the 'illegal' thing here and get these stats reported.
Well, maybe the war zone is the less dangerous option. ~;)
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2012, 23:02
Well, maybe the war zone is the less dangerous option. ~;)
More Americans have died/been shot in Chicago this year than Aghanistan
Greyblades
12-20-2012, 23:29
And in Afghanistan the guys with guns have more things to worry about than the press.
Guess what?
Mass shootings are not (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062) becoming more common. The media has been largely speculating and getting their facts wrong since the shooting took place and have continued, apparently, making things up to sell copy. I applaud the AP for injecting a dose of reality into the debate.
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.(emphasis mine)
Papewaio
12-21-2012, 02:05
Thanks Xiahou.
Prohibition finished in 1933. So that removed a lot of the cash flow from the criminals.
I say that is a good argument to stop the war on drugs and reinvest the money in either paying off government debt or into th mental health system.
a completely inoffensive name
12-21-2012, 02:11
Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!
~:smoking:
You know, I think I am done with this thread. It's obvious that this thread has just become a nice circlejerk among certain europeans who figure that the only statistic that matters is that their number is lower than the US number. You all more or less know me, I am not exactly an American patriot like some of the more right wing American members here. But the arrogance towards the US in general is just insufferable for me.
It's very frustrating to try and explain the differences between US and Europe and get these one liner responses that either outright dismiss the argument or just a rehash of the same statistical argument "we have less deaths, we are more civilized, listen to us."
Someone pointed out that Canada has a fair share of guns and does not have the same problem as the US. Obviously, this is a multifaceted problem involving American culture, more specifically I have made the case that the problem is our terrible mental healthcare, and indeed out healthcare in general. But again, the reaction is to refocus the argument on how not why.
It has been pointed out that the demographics are different for the US, our border situation is different, our neighbors are different (who exactly is the Mexico of Europe?), our history is different, our individual states are different themselves. But no, such things are dismissed as "gang violence is only 12%, you are still barbarians." or "You are saying african americans commit a large portion of overall gun crimes against other african americans? Racist!"
The US is not as urban nor as homogeneous as European countries are, falling back on European attempts at multiculturalism as a defense against the homogeneous argument is laughable. As if a policy that is a few decades old counters an entire culture built upon three centuries of any man, woman and child across the world staking a claim in North America.
Even worse is when I point out that despite the rampant proliferation of guns and the victories of gun culture over the past two decades, we have seen gun related crimes and violent crime in general per capita decline by tremendous amounts. The US is improving, we are becoming more responsible but people want to cave into the immediate emotions now, or they don't want to admit that in the long run there could be a different way than the European model. Instead you get responses like the one I quoted above. Nothing like a few days of condescension from people who live 8 time zones away when 18 of your fellow Americans, kids no less, have been killed.
What's even more sad is when the American liberals hop onto the bandwagon and start painting everyone willing to break the circle as some absolutist extremist. As if the Assault Weapons Ban stopped the kids in Columbine from killing as many fucking students as they wanted. As if the Connecticut ban on handguns for anyone under 21 stopped the 20 year old killer from obtaining a handgun. As if a fucking 30 round magazine is what makes the difference between a massacre and a single murder. Because we all know that if you only have 8 bullet magazines, the killer will need to spend an extra 10 seconds swapping out magazines, which makes the difference for people running at 2% of the speed of a bullet (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15+miles+per+hour+%2F+speed+of+a+bullet).
Obviously though we are just savages who are ignorant of how best to save lives. If only we were as careful with guns as say, Norway, nothing like this would have happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik)
I am just done here. No one wants to talk about the real statistics that matter. The fact that there are 3 times more mentally ill people in jail in the US than in actual treatment facilities. We have no other place to put them. http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
This will likely be my last post in this thread. I am really done reading this. I hope American society continues to improve as it has over the past two decades and shows the world that with enough emphasis on responsibility and improving mental health care we can indeed live in a society where we enjoy the freedom to own guns and live safely as well.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 03:02
The United States homicide rate is 4.2 out of 100k per anum avg
The United Kingdom homicide rate is 1.7 out of 100k per anum avg
In the U.S., whites commit 1 homicide to every 8 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=white%20black%20homicide&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rci.rutgers.edu%2F~roos%2FCourses%2Fgrstat502%2Fphillipssp802.pdf&ei=dMPTUL7oIqPy0wG65oDIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFarj6YFZ8HotosssXA5A74WTKGSg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ) committed by blacks. Hispanics commit some multiplier (2-3x) of homicides to every 1 by whites, but it is a number between 2 and 8
In the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity), non-hispanic Whites make up 63.7% of the population, blacks are 12.6%, hispanics make up around 16%
In the U.K. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity), non hispanic whites make up 92% of the population, blacks make up around 2%, hispanics don't register.
here is an article from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm), "the conservative d-bags council"?, no wait, the federal center for disease control...
During 2007, homicide rates were highest among persons aged 15--34 years, and the overall unadjusted rate for males was approximately 4 times that of females (9.8 versus 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population, respectively. Unadjusted homicide rates were highest among blacks (23.1 deaths per 100,000), followed by AI/ANs (7.8) and Hispanics (7.6), then whites (2.7) and A/PIs (2.4)
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm#tab1)
Can anyone break those figures down for me? To pretend that homogeneity and heterogeneity don't enter into the figures is a lie. I like a cosmopolitan society, but I don't like people to lie to me or themselves about reality. Make it about class or status as it relates to race, but weigh the numbers fairly. This isn't aryan race crap, I think people are inherently equal and certain subsections of society have been unfairly disadvantaged due to deeply rooted emotions. It just doesn't mean that I'm going to lie to myself.
Papewaio
12-21-2012, 03:10
CDC is a good place for this information
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html
That particular link is by ethnic group for 10-24 yr olds
Though White-British is a minority in London (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html).
White British: 44.9%
Other white: 14.9%
Asian: 18.4%
Black: 13.3%
Arab: 1.3%
Mixed race: 5%
Homicide Rate in London? 1.8 per 100,000 people.
Not really homogeneous/heterogeneous issue.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 03:17
The one I posted is unadjusted for all ages, right?
So London would be a better comparison, although you guys didn't enslave (arguably) and completely decimate the culture of the "asians, blacks, arabs, and mixed race" right? The relative poverty is massively different. Personally I believe that socioeconomic status and disenfranchisement are the causes of high crime, it's just that in the US we have too great a share of that problem in 2 ethnic groups (although there are technically more whites below the poverty line than blacks in sheer number). Compare incomes in each of those groups vs their white counterparts.
In NYC blacks and hispanics make up 55% of the population, the remaining 45% is non-hispanic white (21%) Asian (10%) Other (14%). Our cosmopolitan is one that you couldn't even fathom.
Papewaio
12-21-2012, 03:40
London is as mixed, it's just different "races" in each positon.
Sydney is similar in mix with 39% born overseas.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 03:51
Most of those "born overseas" in Sydney are British, South African, Rhodesian, Kiwi - other commonwealth and other european. In other word's - people who look, act and have ancestries with 6 degrees of separation from you. Barely 10% even look different or come from markedly different linguistic and cultural origins - and 2% of those were in Australia before you got there not from "overseas". My city dwarfs yours in "cultural ecleticity". But congratulations on being a bumpkin
Papewaio
12-21-2012, 04:25
I'm from out west. About a third are from India and Sri Lanka, next biggest group is Middle Eastern.
My IT team mates are from Zimbabwe (African), Pakistan, Hong Kong, Romania, Thailand, Vietnam, Ireland, England and three Ozzies.
My point is heterogeneity or homogeneity is a red herring. Social economics and mental health are far more on track. Otherwise Brevik a Norwegian in Norway or Lanza an essentially white kid from a well off family in a majority white neighborhood wouldn't have happened. Also to make myself clear, guns are not at fault, they are however a force multiplier and as such lead to more deaths when used as per design.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 04:30
I agree, but in the U.S. blacks have a special level of disenfranchisement historically that we can't shake as a society to date. The point that many have made is that our Gun rights cause our higher homicide rates rather than our demographic and social openness. We have, historically, invited people in poverty into our country and have a contiguous border with an impoverished nation which allows especially at risk populations access to our lands. Much of this was to fill empty lands, but it has been one of the most incredible experiments in world history and benefited countless people. This makes our crime rate higher, not guns. Gun rights here account for a higher gun homicide rate, but not for the higher homicide rate in general. This is my point. You think you are comparing apples and apples, but you are comparing apples and the finest oranges. I'm pro immigration and I'm not worried about an extra 3 people per 100k being murdered per year because the benefits to everyone drastically outweighs the costs. I also support gun rights because I believe that individuals have an expansive right to defend themselves, their family, their property and their nation. I believe this right is one of our strengths, just like our openness to immigration is. You guys hold us to a standard that we cannot meet because of a situation which you cannot understand.
Papewaio
12-21-2012, 04:43
Australia has a lot of trouble intergrating immigrant waves. We also compared to our physical health system have a very poor mental health system.
One advantage we have is an education system where it is free(Ish) to go to Uni, low youth unemployment and relatively inclusive society if you play or worship at the altar of sport.
We are certainly not perfect and the environment and wildlife can kill you off as quickly as a road raging nutter.
We did learn from the American Consitution and the Civil War... One of our parts is that once you become part of the federation you cannot leave it. We also watch, learn and incorporate from UK, Europe and the rest of the world ideas.
We still get it wrong, can't operate a submarine or a nuclear reactor, havn't launched anyone into space or done a very good job in looking after the Aboroginal inhabitants. So I'd put us in the reject pile of apples.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 04:49
So I'd put us in the reject pile of apples.
Not with crime rates. Remember when it used to be almost impossible for black people to move to Australia to live 25 years ago? You guys have a very different experience with immigration from the U.S. Most of yours comes from very British, relatively and objectively affluent centers
Crazed Rabbit
12-21-2012, 05:10
If you're going to look at the total murder rate for the US there's no grounds for going after rifles of any kind - which make up a fraction (~3%) of total firearm homicides.
So... compare the killings in Europe with gangs included to those in the USA without...
Given how restricted guns are in many European countries this will likely make the difference even greater.
~:smoking:
Or, you know, your comparison is invalid. Because the gangs in Europe simply do not compare to the gangs in North America - namely American and especially Mexico - that have sprouted up as a result of the drug war.
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.
From your site:
*Because of the many issues surrounding the maintenance and collection of gang-crime data, caution is urged when interpreting the results presented below. For more information regarding this issue, see:
Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!
No, we've had a drastic drop in murders while having a drastic increase in guns.
I think all you Europeans need to read that again.
Note CR's self-conflicting mish-mash of reasoning, beginning with how any regulation is impractical, but always coming back to how any regulation is a violation of fundamental rights and an imposition of the Nanny State. (So why bother to argue the practicality in the first place, if we're proceeding from a priori truths?)
Really? :laugh4:
That's your response? I respond point-by-point and your critique is that I had two arguments to support my position, neither of which, apparently, you could find fault with?
From CR's stated perspective, there is no regulation of firearms in the U.S.A. that can ever be legitimate. Or of there is, he's avoiding mentioning it. How is that not "absolutist"? Or at least a very good imitation of absolutism?
Wrong. But don't let me get in the way of you misstating your opponent's position. Again.
and things such as the gun show loophole (which they fight strenuously to maintain) put a hole below the waterline in their credibility.
Oh, you mean how the anti-gun folks would like to require a background check for all gun sales between individuals, effectively eliminating gun sales between private parties? Yeah, that's stupid and uselessly restrictive as well.
It's illegal for ATF to release any statistical information about makes, models, or types of guns used in crimes. No specifics, mind you, just statistics, and it's been illegal since 2003. Thanks, guys.
Blame the sue-happy anti-gun nuts who would use that info to sue any gun companies if one model showed up more often than another.
It's interesting, Lemur. You made all those claims about the need for more legislation and regulation. But you haven't responded to any critiques and now you're shifting into vaguely blaming the NRA for various things. It's all ad hominem attacks. You've got nothing.
EDIT: In fact, let's take a quick look at that opinion article from the NYT:
It’s just common sense that we need a radical reduction in the number and kind of guns for sale.
So he's got no backing for this statement in terms of statistics, just a gut feeling. And then again states without evidence that guns have to be tightly regulated, whilst complaining:
On the contrary, they often plausibly present themselves as tough-minded empiricists, opposing facts to liberal emoting.
Gee, I wonder why that is. Why that could possibly be. How it could be that the anti-gun liberals, who always are trying to emotionally exploit these tragedies, could possibly be cast as people pushing laws based on fear and emotions, while the pro-gun people responding with facts and statistics are the empiricists. In short he says without any backing guns have to be banned, complains that pro-gun folks have all the evidence on their side, and then blames the NRA.
:daisy: that's a pathetic argument.
Also, to expand on ACIN's point; why does Norway get praised for not having a knee jerk reaction to their terrorist madman, but if the US does the same thing, it's because we're all stupid violent idiots?
CR
What happened in Norway cannot be compared, that was a terrorist attack not your ordinary rampage. He had planned it for years. Norway deserves a lot of respect for how it dealt with it, they just trialed him. For me at least, I saw a monster that frightened the hell out of me becomming something utterly pathetic.
That's your response? I respond point-by-point and your critique [...]
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't speak Wall of Text.
Bottom line is that you are putting yourself over in this thread as someone who believes that any regulation of firearms is a violation of a fundamental right. You can huff and puff about how this misrepresents the deep logic of your position, but in your haste and heat to discredit the EVIL GUN GRABBERS, you have not bothered to flesh out your own position beyond GUNS GOOD and GUN GRABBERS BAD.
Sheesh, you even write off the value of statistical reporting because it might be used by evil gun grabbers. I mean, seriously, take a look at your own posts in this thread, man. There's absolutely no reason to get into a point-by-point wall of text rebuttal game that only you and I will read, certainly not if you're as entrenched and utterly convicted as you make yourself out to be. I got all my arguing-with-an-immovable-object out of my system with Gawain back in the day; the only reason I would wade into it now would be to sway the audience, but I don't see anyone in this thread that's wavering.
So how's about we play find-the-common-ground? That might be a more interesting game to play before the Mayan Apocalypse. Is there any regulation of firearms that seems both sensible and constitutionally legitimate to you? If so, what?
Ironside
12-21-2012, 09:14
Also, to expand on ACIN's point; why does Norway get praised for not having a knee jerk reaction to their terrorist madman, but if the US does the same thing, it's because we're all stupid violent idiots?
CR
Because it's seen as a worse case of buissness as usual, rather than an exception.
a completely inoffensive name
12-21-2012, 11:29
What happened in Norway cannot be compared, that was a terrorist attack not your ordinary rampage. He had planned it for years. Norway deserves a lot of respect for how it dealt with it, they just trialed him. For me at least, I saw a monster that frightened the hell out of me becomming something utterly pathetic.
And you think Columbine was spontaneous?
And you think Columbine was spontaneous?
Not like this. Breivik is a terrorist who planned his massacre for years. Just because terrorism usually comes from the left doesn't mean it can't also come from the right, that's what happened here. It wasn't his specific goal to kill as many as he could, he wanted to whipe out an entire generation of future labour-leaders. It's ice-cold logic in the most twisted way.
Sir Moody
12-21-2012, 12:52
Just because terrorism usually comes from the left doesn't mean it can't also come from the right, that's what happened here.
it does?
What Left wing terrorist groups are you referring too?
it does?
What Left wing terrorist groups are you referring too?
Just about every one?
Sir Moody
12-21-2012, 13:15
you obviously have a VERY broad view on what the left is then
Al Qaeda and most of the groups affiliated with them are far Right (they support an Ultra Conservative religious doctrine)
In fact off the top of my head the only Left wing terrorist group I can think of were the IRA (who grew out of a communist party)
you obviously have a VERY broad view on what the left is then
Al Qaeda and most of the groups affiliated with them are far Right (they support an Ultra Conservative religious doctrine)
In fact off the top of my head the only Left wing terrorist group I can think of were the IRA (who grew out of a communist party)
the list is a lot longer than that...just in Europe (Italy, Germany, Portugal just off the top of my head)....also south america.
But agreed, there is no monopoly either on the extreme left or the extreme right for terrorism.
Conradus
12-21-2012, 14:01
Rote Armee Fraktion (Germany) or CCC (Belgium) to name a few.
you obviously have a VERY broad view on what the left is then
Al Qaeda and most of the groups affiliated with them are far Right (they support an Ultra Conservative religious doctrine)
In fact off the top of my head the only Left wing terrorist group I can think of were the IRA (who grew out of a communist party)
Al qaeda doesn't really count, but still, the left is absolutely in love with islam, so no go.
Kralizec
12-21-2012, 14:17
ETA and PKK are, or used to be, marxist-leninist organisations. Same many other seperatist groups. Allthough their marxist beliefs are usually less pronounced than their desire to secede on ethnic/cultural grounds. Seriously hard-core leftist groups include RAF, FARC, Japanese Red Army, etc. Common theme between all of these is that they’re all from western countries, or at least countries aligned with the USA during the cold war.
Most terrorist organisations seem to be either extreme leftists, separatists or religious nuts. Never heard of a terrorist group that drew its inspiration from laissez-faire capitalism or whatever.
ETA and PKK are, or used to be, marxist-leninist organisations. Same many other seperatist groups. Allthough their marxist beliefs are usually less pronounced than their desire to secede on ethnic/cultural grounds. Seriously hard-core leftist groups include RAF, FARC, Japanese Red Army, etc. Common theme between all of these is that they’re all from western countries, or at least countries aligned with the USA during the cold war.
Most terrorist organisations seem to be either extreme leftists, separatists or religious nuts. Never heard of a terrorist group that drew its inspiration from laissez-faire capitalism or whatever.
Sure but there is a little bit more sympathy for that Nordic berserker than I can be comfortable with. Especially now since things are going a bit less good, in Greece the Golden Dawn is now bigger than they ought to be, all fascist/seperatist parties thrive in the south. Not good.
Sir Moody
12-21-2012, 15:02
I did say off the top of my head :yes:- yeah I would agree with that Kralizec - Terrorist groups by their very definition are extremists so its unlikely to find them in the center
Tellos Athenaios
12-21-2012, 15:33
Also, to expand on ACIN's point; why does Norway get praised for not having a knee jerk reaction to their terrorist madman, but if the US does the same thing, it's because we're all stupid violent idiots?
CR
I'll serve: your past is taken into account when judging your actions today. So, if you were all stupid violent idiots before, something shocking happens and you continue as you did before, you all remain stupid violent idiots. As you were, then.
Seriously though: Norway's attitude towards safety, security and fire arms was comparatively sensible to begin with. The USA, not so much.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-21-2012, 15:34
I did say off the top of my head :yes:- yeah I would agree with that Kralizec - Terrorist groups by their very definition are extremists so its unlikely to find them in the center
TOLERATE OTHERS OR WE BOMB YOU!
Yeah...
Doesn't sound right.
Anders Brevik was an anomaly in pretty much every way you can think of. Frags has a point - terrorism is largely either a Left-Wing or Relgious phenomenon, and the religious element has more often been Islam than anything else. That's not to say the Right can't be vile and violent, but they often seem to work on getting elected before unleashing the hounds of hell.
I think a centrist terrorist movement could work. A bombing campaign to promote a fairer tax system. High profile assassinations to highlight the lack of suitable creche facilities for working mothers.
Ironside
12-21-2012, 16:25
ETA and PKK are, or used to be, marxist-leninist organisations. Same many other seperatist groups. Allthough their marxist beliefs are usually less pronounced than their desire to secede on ethnic/cultural grounds. Seriously hard-core leftist groups include RAF, FARC, Japanese Red Army, etc. Common theme between all of these is that they’re all from western countries, or at least countries aligned with the USA during the cold war.
Most terrorist organisations seem to be either extreme leftists, separatists or religious nuts. Never heard of a terrorist group that drew its inspiration from laissez-faire capitalism or whatever.
Separatists are the really big group, at least in Europe. Corsica got the second largest group (FLNC. Doesn't seem to have a left wing histroy) after the basques. Hungary got pretty much all European right wing terrorism at the moment.
I could see a laissez-faire capitalism group form in the US (in particular with Ayn Rand being popular), but yeah they aren't big on terrorism. It's mostly for the revolutionary and extreme reactionary.
TOLERATE OTHERS OR WE BOMB YOU!
Yeah...
Doesn't sound right.
Anders Brevik was an anomaly in pretty much every way you can think of. Frags has a point - terrorism is largely either a Left-Wing or Relgious phenomenon, and the religious element has more often been Islam than anything else. That's not to say the Right can't be vile and violent, but they often seem to work on getting elected before unleashing the hounds of hell.
Not surprising really since the far left tends towards revolution while the far right tends towards entrenchment.
Edit:
Mind you, your analysis does depend on the idea that a state (or elements of the state) cannot be terrorists which simply isn't true eg kristallnacht.
There is a difference between motivation and justification. We tend to forget that, especially when it comes to so-called "religious extremism".
The NRA needs to fire it's PR team. Armed guards in every school is the best they could come up with? :inquisitive:
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 21:36
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't speak Wall of Text.
Bottom line is that you are putting yourself over in this thread as someone who believes that any regulation of firearms is a violation of a fundamental right. You can huff and puff about how this misrepresents the deep logic of your position, but in your haste and heat to discredit the EVIL GUN GRABBERS, you have not bothered to flesh out your own position beyond GUNS GOOD and GUN GRABBERS BAD.
Sheesh, you even write off the value of statistical reporting because it might be used by evil gun grabbers. I mean, seriously, take a look at your own posts in this thread, man. There's absolutely no reason to get into a point-by-point wall of text rebuttal game that only you and I will read, certainly not if you're as entrenched and utterly convicted as you make yourself out to be. I got all my arguing-with-an-immovable-object out of my system with Gawain back in the day; the only reason I would wade into it now would be to sway the audience, but I don't see anyone in this thread that's wavering.
So how's about we play find-the-common-ground? That might be a more interesting game to play before the Mayan Apocalypse. Is there any regulation of firearms that seems both sensible and constitutionally legitimate to you? If so, what?
In NY, we are about 2-3 weeks away from a wholesale Semi-Auto gun ban where Andrew Cuomo has said that confiscation is on the table. You should have seen the line at the store. They are going to have a major problem on their hands if they don't de-escalate this situation. Gun owners are being treated like criminals and threatened by the government with punitive force (confiscation) because one crazy person committed a terrible crime in another state. You guys are nuts and creating a potentially dangerous national situation because of poorly understood data and a hair-trigger response.
There are 270 semi-auto rifle homicides per year on average, nationwide out of 9k gun homicides. You guys are nuts.
You guys are nuts and creating a potentially dangerous national situation.
That sounds rather ominous. My position, as I've stated three times elsewhere in this thread, is that gun ownership should be roughly as regulated as motor vehicle ownership. If that's treating gun owners "like criminals," well ...
And in reference to drone's note, the NRA has unveiled its proposal (they would not take questions, so no follow-up): Armed guards in every school in America.
Details here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE8BI1BV20121221).
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 21:44
Person A committed an horrific crime. People B,C,D,E,F who have no knowledge of this person should feel shame for this, repent, and have assets seized from them because of the crime.
Again, 270 semi-auto rifle homicides per year and we should be punished.
I understand how it felt to have GWB as your President and how we held you over the coals for 8 years. I know that it is making the politics of the Democratic party want to exact revenge on the GOP and it's supporters and Obama is going to make this term hurt. Remember how it felt to have us on the run 4 years from now.
Person A committed an horrific crime. People B,C,D,E,F who have no knowledge of this person should feel shame for this, repent, and have assets taken from them because of it is not a reasonable way to pursue justice.
To go back to the motor vehicle analogy, I seem to remember that when an 80-year-old driver plowed through a crowd in a mall, there was, in fact, a push to re-test old people more frequently to retain their drivers' licenses. Exact same scenario; someone graphically demonstrates a problem in the system, so people look at it and ask, "Are there adjustments we should make to the system?"
If not, then not. If so, then what?
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 21:56
Were old people asked to feel ashamed for themselves? Is that a usual response? I understand the push for more transparency. I am in favor of checks and balances. You want to permit people to own high powered weapons pending a background? Go for it. Permit them for unrestricted CCW? Be my guest. Get a good idea of which weapons are being used in violent crimes? Go right ahead. I think those arguments can be made by both sides and I agree more with the control lobby on those issues. I do not like restricted CCW (sportsmen nonsense here), magazine count limits, "evil features" limits, other than silencers and punitive renewal fees. Don't pretend the gun control lobby in NY has any interest in keeping the 2nd Ammendment in the Constitution. Most of them want no guns, anywhere. In Wisconsin they are just more likely to make friends with middle grounders. Mike Bloombers "I don't think anyone has done more to protect the 2nd Ammendment than me". What a load of crap. You can't carry a 2 inch knife with a locking mechanism in his city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_mJa3wYFHc
This knife is illegal in NYC. 2.5 inch blade - lock makes it so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27GoHb9tEhM
This knife is illegal in Chicago. 3 inch blade - .5 inches makes it so.
These people do not believe in the right to bear arms. These things arn't even "arms", they barely register as "chodes"
I've never seen so many people buy AR-15's in such a short period of time and I've got one on it's way
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-21-2012, 22:04
Person A committed an horrific crime. People B,C,D,E,F who have no knowledge of this person should feel shame for this, repent, and have assets seized from them because of the crime.
Again, 270 semi-auto rifle homicides per year and we should be punished.
I understand how it felt to have GWB as your President and how we held you over the coals for 8 years. I know that it is making the politics of the Democratic party want to exact revenge on the GOP and it's supporters and Obama is going to make this term hurt. Remember how it felt to have us on the run 4 years from now.
A gun is a tool for killing things - explain why you need a semi auto.
And don't say "to do a follow up when hunting" because if you don't kill the animal with the first shot the meat will be no good anyway.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 22:13
A gun is a tool for killing things - explain why you need a semi auto.
And don't say "to do a follow up when hunting" because if you don't kill the animal with the first shot the meat will be no good anyway.
A gun is a tool for killing or stopping things. I agree. A semi-auto is an effective tool for killing and stopping, often more things than a pump action or self loaded bolt action is. This is why you would need it. Limits in NY on ammunition have already been lowered to 10 rounds, 18 years ago. Now they want to ban the weapon, even though homicide rates nationwide have gone down with less gun control. At some point, the amount of things you need to kill or stop becomes a concern beyond reasonable self defense. A line has been drawn at full auto weapons, and hey - I can be persuaded to agree in some situations. If we get past the idea that the second amendment exists to protect people who want to have a fun hobby or eat gamier meat than is available in local stores, then we are getting somewhere. That argument is fallacy. A gun is not a tool for sports and there is no amendment is not in or Bill of Rights to protect cricketers or basketball players. It is there to protect the right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their loved ones from dangers - from violent criminals - but more notably from state-sized enemies within and those outside.
I'm not a hunter. I'm only a sportsman to become proficient at using my weapon. I keep and bear arms because it is my duty to myself and others in the event where I need sufficient firepower to resist tyranny on a small scale or large scale; burglary, murder, coup, invasion, riot, despotism.
You are under a good government, I am under a good government - bot have their problems. Problems can and will metastasize over time and that government can become a bad one. Or it can be supplanted by a bad one. Your rights will disappear. People fight wars to get rights, against others and against their own countrymen. If you don't have the tools to win the war, you will lose the war.
To go back to the motor vehicle analogy, I seem to remember that when an 80-year-old driver plowed through a crowd in a mall, there was, in fact, a push to re-test old people more frequently to retain their drivers' licenses. Exact same scenario; someone graphically demonstrates a problem in the system, so people look at it and ask, "Are there adjustments we should make to the system?"
If not, then not. If so, then what?
The "gray menace" is also largely overblown. Sure, it makes good press when grandpa plows through a farmers market- but statistically they're far safer drivers than young demographics.
My position, as I've stated three times elsewhere in this thread, is that gun ownership should be roughly as regulated as motor vehicle ownership.As far as I know, there are very few limitations on who can own a car. You're thinking of driver's licenses. You don't need one of those to own a car- only to drive one on public roads. I don't think you're arguing that gun ownership is over regulated. ~D
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2012, 23:15
Old people are dangerous - as a claims adjuster I think I can say this - and so are drivers below 21 as a rule. Old people tend to drive too slowly, causing added danger for people who drive too quickly. I wouldn't say they cause an absurd amount of accidents. Here again, we test them at a certain age to make sure that they can drive safely. We don't ban them from driving if they can safely drive.
As far as I know, there are very few limitations on who can own a car. You're thinking of driver's licenses. You don't need one of those to own a car- only to drive one on public roads.
Right, of course, I actually thought about editing it to read "ownership and operation" but decided it was a bit clunky, and people would know what I meant. Apologies for not being more precise.
Also note that any purchase of a motor vehicle is recorded and registered, at least in most states. Perhaps it's different in the wilds of Pennsylvania. You people are weird, what with the state having a monopoly on booze.
But in most places, if you fail to register a motor vehicle, and attempt to drive it without a license, trouble will occur. Records of owners, registrants, and licensees are well-kept. That seems like an appropriate level of oversight to this lemur.
Do you believe there is anything that should be addressed with gun ownership and operation? Anything at all?
A gun is a tool for killing or stopping things. I agree. A semi-auto is an effective tool for killing and stopping, often more things than a pump action or self loaded bolt action is. This is why you would need it. Limits in NY on ammunition have already been lowered to 10 rounds, 18 years ago. Now they want to ban the weapon, even though homicide rates nationwide have gone down with less gun control. At some point, the amount of things you need to kill or stop becomes a concern beyond reasonable self defense. A line has been drawn at full auto weapons, and hey - I can be persuaded to agree in some situations. If we get past the idea that the second amendment exists to protect people who want to have a fun hobby or eat gamier meat than is available in local stores, then we are getting somewhere. That argument is fallacy. A gun is not a tool for sports and there is no amendment is not in or Bill of Rights to protect cricketers or basketball players. It is there to protect the right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their loved ones from dangers - from violent criminals - but more notably from state-sized enemies within and those outside.
I'm not a hunter. I'm only a sportsman to become proficient at using my weapon. I keep and bear arms because it is my duty to myself and others in the event where I need sufficient firepower to resist tyranny on a small scale or large scale; burglary, murder, coup, invasion, riot, despotism.
You are under a good government, I am under a good government - bot have their problems. Problems can and will metastasize over time and that government can become a bad one. Or it can be supplanted by a bad one. Your rights will disappear. People fight wars to get rights, against others and against their own countrymen. If you don't have the tools to win the war, you will lose the war.
This is not meant to be a slight at you. I'm sure you are a nice bloke, and mean well. However I am really, really, REALLY glad that my neighbourhood doesn't have people like you. I sleep very well at night knowing that within a mile radius of me in this city, there are likely, at most 5-10 firearms. And that those are hidden away and very illegal.
Papewaio
12-22-2012, 01:20
Wouldn't you want the statistics released on what is the most lethal/highest stopping power weapons?
If I lived in fear I'd like any decent strategy gamer, game the system.
I'd figure out what is the best weapon for each location in my house. Say have a shotgun for the hallway. A pistol in a safe in the bedroom. A rifle to cover the backyard. I'd also setup secure cameras to cover blind spots, accidentally leave toys under windows. I'd make sure my fire exit drill isn't compromised by intruder protection systems and vice a versa. If anything I'd plan it so I have multiple exits and fallback points.
I'd like to know which weapon is optimized for each scenario and I'd hate to buy something that would just aggravate the attacker or let them get easy access to my self defence weapons.
Also it would allow me to assess a situation much quicker if I could size up what kind of firepower the attacker has.
If I went full on, I'd set up false cover, nightingale boards, trapdoors, spotlights, thermal cameras and have a good dog.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 01:45
Wouldn't you want the statistics released on what is the most lethal/highest stopping power weapons?
If I lived in fear I'd like any decent strategy gamer, game the system.
I'd figure out what is the best weapon for each location in my house. Say have a shotgun for the hallway. A pistol in a safe in the bedroom. A rifle to cover the backyard. I'd also setup secure cameras to cover blind spots, accidentally leave toys under windows. I'd make sure my fire exit drill isn't compromised by intruder protection systems and vice a versa. If anything I'd plan it so I have multiple exits and fallback points.
I'd like to know which weapon is optimized for each scenario and I'd hate to buy something that would just aggravate the attacker or let them get easy access to my self defence weapons.
Also it would allow me to assess a situation much quicker if I could size up what kind of firepower the attacker has.
If I went full on, I'd set up false cover, nightingale boards, trapdoors, spotlights, thermal cameras and have a good dog.
I do want those figures. I love figures
I also have a wife, so I'm going to have to settle for a few gun safes and cameras around the perimeter. When I have kids I'm going to seriously reconsider ever telling them about my guns until it becomes clear that they are not insane, even then I will hide or sell my collection. I told my dad not to get a shotgun when he asked as it would jeopardize the safety of mid teens still in the house.
I'd also like my neighbors not to be helpless. I've never hear of a murder with a gun or even a shooting anywhere near my town. One guy went crazy and killed his wife and son, but they lived near the train tracks. It is amazing to me that the US has so little killing with all of the guns we've got. You guys live in a fantasy work where Americans are just bathing in each others blood all day long. The gun culture here is really incredible in that it is so peaceful
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-22-2012, 02:12
This is not meant to be a slight at you. I'm sure you are a nice bloke, and mean well. However I am really, really, REALLY glad that my neighbourhood doesn't have people like you. I sleep very well at night knowing that within a mile radius of me in this city, there are likely, at most 5-10 firearms. And that those are hidden away and very illegal.
And yet, walking past Boots at 6pm on a Winter's night is still a bit nerve wracking sometimes. Last time my sister was here she said she couldn't get over how early the drunks appear here.
Greyblades
12-22-2012, 03:28
I'm getting the feeling that parts of america are in the position that trying to ban firearms would be a detriment, not because more guns are the best solution to the problems of safety out of all the alternatives developed, but because thier social services' capacity to respond to threats requiring force is poor enough that, as it is, a good portion of america doesn't have the capacity to provide the alternatives european countries can. Guns are litteraly the only solution available and to take that away before ensuring the presence and effectiveness of said alternatives would cause more problems than solved.
Take that with a grain of salt, I have a raging cold that makes me dizzy so I'm not sure if it is correct.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 04:05
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
-Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address
There is no constitutional right to revolution, that action is extra-constitutional related to a founding philosophical "right to revolution". The Bill of rights ensures rights that exist outside of the power of government (with allowances for State regulation); the second amendment protects the right of "the people" to check the power of the Federal government which has a professional military. Arguably, if the relationship as a check and balance exists, the militia and the people within in should have relatively serious firepower (not just small arms). This document protects the people's ability to rise up, but does not protect the "right" to rise up which cannot exist within a legal framework. It does, however, created a means by which the Federal Government and States can suppress treasonous militias - as it should.
You should read this article by a USAF Colonel (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1)- prior to the recent Heller case which more obviously affirmed an individual right to bear arms. I think it is fair. More importantly, I think that you will think it is fair. Extremely informative.
The author correctly understands the historical relevance of the document as it relates to a balance of power in theory. He goes on to suggest that armed civilians have no realistic chance of countering a modern military. He uses good arguments to support this theory. He then puts in references to suggest that other high ranking military men of their own day felt the same way (George Washington). He brings up good points about successful counter insurgencies and how they were effective because they were backed by other large and conventional forces, rather than through the use of small arms. He uses these points, but only minimally considers that civilian means do not end at small arms and that our technological capacities are growing. He speaks little of digital sabotage done by non-state actors (the article was written prior to fever pitch in this evolution). He was happy to use failed examples (Che in Bolivia and the IRA in N.I.) but failed to discuss Che in Cuba and the IRA in the Republic. Although these were no doubt aided by international forces, they were profound. He also does not expand on his reference to the unique nature of the modern American Military as comprised of thinking and deep individuals who may defect - with some amount of conventional capability - should the choice become necessary.
In spite of these things - Revolutions occur, and sometimes they are philosophically historic. Rarely have they been simple or able to be chalked up to one cause or another.
All in all it was fair and informative because he understands the purpose of the amendment, understands the strong opposition to the notions, and is understanding of the evolving nature of government, citizens and warfare.
Papewaio
12-22-2012, 05:12
The change I'd make to give a revolution the logistical support it needs is:
"The people have the right to 3D print the arms that they shall bear."
Makes for a more flexible and well maintained ability. Also removes the corporate spin from the debate.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 05:27
The change I'd make to give a revolution the logistical support it needs is:
"The people have the right to 3D print the arms that they shall bear."
Makes for a more flexible and well maintained ability. Also removes the corporate spin from the debate.
Oh I love that idea. Materials are not durable enough at this point to support auto-sear and prolonged full-auto fire, so nothing to be worried about... just yet.
Ironside
12-22-2012, 09:32
I'd also like my neighbors not to be helpless. I've never hear of a murder with a gun or even a shooting anywhere near my town. One guy went crazy and killed his wife and son, but they lived near the train tracks. It is amazing to me that the US has so little killing with all of the guns we've got. You guys live in a fantasy work where Americans are just bathing in each others blood all day long. The gun culture here is really incredible in that it is so peaceful
What town size are we talking about here?
Because it does feel like you're protecting yourself against tigers, even with a zoo nearby. It can happen, but the odds are minimal.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 13:46
What town size are we talking about here?
Because it does feel like you're protecting yourself against tigers, even with a zoo nearby. It can happen, but the odds are minimal.
I've always loved guns, ever since I was a really little kid. I've always wanted an ARand was blown away a few years ago when I found out they were legal in NY. I've worked on watches, I research tea ceremonies and I'm interested in the heavy duty militarization of civilians just because. I'm also buying a stripped lower so I can build another one to high end specs. Think of it as model ship building that you can play with
There are about 1.4 million people in Suffolk county which is rather small. Just over 1 hour east to west, 20 mins north to south. now that I recall there was one young kid who killed his ex gf with some sort of gun. The other murders were psychotic breakdown where a wife killed her husband by stabbing him with a knife 30 times and a husband who had a psychotic breakdown and murdered his wife and 10 year old son with a baseball bat like in the shining. 30 years ago there was a satanic ritual where a christian kid who got involved with drugs and the crazy people they come with was stabbed in the woods. Mostly stabbings. I'm not too worried about crime here at the moment
Greyblades
12-22-2012, 15:44
I dont think that answered his question.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 16:53
I dont think that answered his question.
A town is a human settlement (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/Human_settlement) larger than a village (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/Village) but smaller than a city (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/City). The size definition for what constitutes a "town" varies considerably in different parts of the world, so that, for example, many "small towns" in the United States (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/United_States) would be regarded as villages in the United Kingdom, while many British "small towns" would qualify as cities in the United States.
The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?
Just to add, before I moved to my new town, actually before I was born, a classmate of my father in law murdered someone and kept the body in his basement until he was caught years later. Non gunshot homicide. The homicide rate is almost entirely within major metropolitan areas of the United States. It is largely confined to the most impoverished areas which happen to have the largest ratio of non-white to white people. Handguns are most often used, rifles to a much lower extent, semi-auto rifles to a statistically irrelevant.
Ironside
12-22-2012, 17:49
The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?
Actually, it got me more confused, since that's city size. While it varies a lot by classification, anything above 5.000-100.000 is a city. Not a townie here, you city dweller.
Anyway, more to my point. If I get you correctly, you're living in a middle class suburban villa area with low crime rates (at least of the violent kind). Correct?
Yet you arm yourself to protect against Fallout cannibalistic raiders, since they are such a big threat.
Do you remember any local home invasions? You seem to recall most murders in the area. The urban guy living in the crime ridden areas do at least have a very clear reason for having heavy defense.
You are pretty much classified as a crazy paranoid, by default, in any other western country simply because the attitudes are so different. And the other regions that have a similar gun attitude are unstable/tribal/lacks a functional goverment/overrun by crocks. And that will colour the entire debate.
Greyblades
12-22-2012, 18:05
Oh incidentally the NRA are now blaming this on media and video games. (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/12/21/nra-points-finger-culture-violent-media-press-conference-newtown-school-shooting)
The National Rifle Association held a press conference this morning defending guns rights and pointing the finger at big media. They also called for a national program for schools that would train school officials on how to best protect educational institutions. The program would use local volunteers and participation would be up to local communities and school boards.
But the gist of what we're interested in covering, is the gun lobby's attack on "violent media." Below is the part of the press conference where Wayne LaPierre (executive vice president of the National Rifle Association) aims his guns at movies, video games, and the media conglomerates that he claims give them cover:
"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?
Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.
A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away."
I particularly like Penny arcade's response to it:
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-dXBjSvG/0/L/i-dXBjSvG-X3.jpg
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 18:48
Actually, it got me more confused, since that's city size. While it varies a lot by classification, anything above 5.000-100.000 is a city. Not a townie here, you city dweller.
Anyway, more to my point. If I get you correctly, you're living in a middle class suburban villa area with low crime rates (at least of the violent kind). Correct?
Yet you arm yourself to protect against Fallout cannibalistic raiders, since they are such a big threat.
Do you remember any local home invasions? You seem to recall most murders in the area. The urban guy living in the crime ridden areas do at least have a very clear reason for having heavy defense.
You are pretty much classified as a crazy paranoid, by default, in any other western country simply because the attitudes are so different. And the other regions that have a similar gun attitude are unstable/tribal/lacks a functional goverment/overrun by crocks. And that will colour the entire debate.
Sure. I live in dense suburbia. It is a well-to-do area where people are extremely polite and crime is nearly non-existent. It is also urbanizing quickly. As urban people are rapidly de-armed, I believe that the idea that we should rapidly arm in the face of urbanization isnt a terrible one, especially if it is a hobby. 40 years ago, my neighborhood was farmland occupied a low tens of thousands. It has seen extraordinary population growth and people per square mile. With this has come marked increases in lawlessness, particularly in Nassau county. I look to Queens and Nassau as an example of what to expect in another 10-20 years. It would be best to render city like gun control uselss in advance of eventual bans of lawful ownership.
Again, the people of the 5 boroughs are not allowed to carry a knife in excess of 3 inches with any ability to protect their hands with a lock. The right to defend yourself in NYC to a reasonable extent is non-existant. They also abuse due process with random checks - not for terror related objects mind you - but for small amounts of marijuana.
Also, I'm not paranoid. I have discretionary income, no interest in purchasing a home or fancy car, and an interest in the military - what else am I going to do with my money?
My fear of authoritative government abusing it's power is no greater than yours. My fear of criminal activity is no greater than yours. I simply would like to arm myself to the greatest extent possible. My fear of death is no greater than yours - but I will bet I have more life insurance to protect my wife than you do.
Preparation is not a sign of fear, it's not even an expectation that something will happen. For some it might be. I'm all about dressing well, not being aggressive and having an unimaginable amount of firepower. I have a tea collection and I did nothing beyond buy 2 bottles of smart water before Hurricane Sandy. I didn't regret it.
Greyblades
12-22-2012, 18:55
...You're on a gaming website and youy cant think of something better to do with your money than guns.
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 18:57
If I spent any more money on video games and components my hands would fall off. I can only play one computer at a time, but I can fire 30 guns simultaneously.... jk, lol
Major Robert Dump
12-22-2012, 19:19
The NRA copped out, not that anyone expected any less.
While I knew that "more security" would be something they said, I was a little off-put at their suggestion at volunteers (laughable) in the face of what will really pay for the added security: a large gun tax
I also found it rich that it was the fault of everything except the gun. I don't ever intend to renew my membership
PanzerJaeger
12-22-2012, 21:16
And yet, the NRA's plan has been the only one offered thus far that would actually do any good in preventing such tragedies in the future. As has been highlighted several times in this thread, gun bans cannot stop these kinds of actions. Now, whether we as a society would want to go down that path is another matter entirely. As I've said before, I don't think these actions are prevalent enough to force any sort of broad policy shift in any directly.
I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. The amount of anti-Obama junk mail they sent me during the election cycle was obscene. However, I will always support them simply because the other side is even more extreme. Consider the fact that confiscation (http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNYT32_Ad8E) is on the table. When the chips have been down, the NRA has been the only force standing between my legally purchased possessions and the leftist authoritarians (http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/the-case-for-a-massive-us-gun-buyback-program/article_ee9fd684-a338-5606-8e61-c60fcccc8f50.html) that want to use the government to take them away.
Greyblades
12-22-2012, 22:08
And what, pray tell, is so heinous about confistcation that you say it with a tone that assumes that we would react to it like it was a call for holcaust?
Especially considering that you do the same with far less dangerous goods?
ICantSpellDawg
12-22-2012, 23:19
And yet, the NRA's plan has been the only one offered thus far that would actually do any good in preventing such tragedies in the future. As has been highlighted several times in this thread, gun bans cannot stop these kinds of actions. Now, whether we as a society would want to go down that path is another matter entirely. As I've said before, I don't think these actions are prevalent enough to force any sort of broad policy shift in any directly.
I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. The amount of anti-Obama junk mail they sent me during the election cycle was obscene. However, I will always support them simply because the other side is even more extreme. Consider the fact that confiscation (http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNYT32_Ad8E) is on the table. When the chips have been down, the NRA has been the only force standing between my legally purchased possessions and the leftist authoritarians (http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/the-case-for-a-massive-us-gun-buyback-program/article_ee9fd684-a338-5606-8e61-c60fcccc8f50.html) that want to use the government to take them away.
I agree with this, of course. Armed responsible people in places where unarmed and defenseless children are is the best answer. We must also have more of an ability to recognize real threats before the action takes place. Scan addresses with criminal databases to get an idea of which addresses with criminals or the dangerously mentally ill also have applications for a background check, even if the other applicant is not a danger. Due process is required and a reasonable and short acceptance is a must, but surely if a major concern exists it is in the interest to dig deeper. Parents should be prosecuted if they encourage violent obsessions for their mentally ill or dangerous children. Adam Lanza had a civil commitment case pending - this should have automatically crossed with a serious mental health registry (people who are criminally insane, people who have expressed serious depressive feelings and a willingness to harm others, the schizophrenic, bi-polar, borderline). Leave out people who are depressed as that is 1/4 of the population.
Greyblades
12-22-2012, 23:29
I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.
Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.
Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?
And that's not a hypothetical question, why?
Ironside
12-23-2012, 09:51
I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.
Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.
It's because the situations were a gun would be useful is quite rare and due to the different culture, if you actually are robbed, they don't use a gun either.
Avoid being alone and drunk in the center parts of the city during late weekends, avoid taking out money when followed by a youth gang and you're pretty much covered.
Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated. I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.
If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.
Only advantage to have widespread access to guns would be to fight against a Zombie Apocalypse, simply because they are powerful ranged weapons.
Crazed Rabbit
01-01-2013, 18:19
Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated.
And when someone is attacking you or your family, you want a weapon that can kill them. So a tool with the purpose of killing someone is a good thing when innocent people are being attacked and need to defend themselves. They are the most effective tools of self defense available. Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?
I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.
Making legislation based on extremely rare events is just plain stupid. The Patriot Act was wrong and any new gun ban they pass will not work. Handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected, and that's what was used in the largest school shooting spree. And even if all guns were banned, there'd still be access - even in Europe many millions of guns are unregistered:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian
And you're wrong - this would not prevent massacres. It would just shift the attack. It's like the TSA banning liquids; useless because it ignores the attacker and focuses on the weapon.
If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.
Even if it did require those things, widespread civilian gun ownership would make things much easier and maybe scare the government off from becoming tyrannical in the first place.
Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?
And that's not a hypothetical question, why?
The NRA and other gun rights groups don't want to go up against the police unions.
Now, you could argue that getting rid of other rights - like privacy and requiring the police to get warrant before searching everyone or tapping their phones, and the right to not self-incriminate - could be ended and save a lot of people.
But we don't throw away our rights - or we shouldn't, at least - because of some hysteria.
CR
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-01-2013, 22:22
A town is a human settlement (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/Human_settlement) larger than a village (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/Village) but smaller than a city (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/City). The size definition for what constitutes a "town" varies considerably in different parts of the world, so that, for example, many "small towns" in the United States (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/United_States) would be regarded as villages in the United Kingdom, while many British "small towns" would qualify as cities in the United States.
The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?
Just to add, before I moved to my new town, actually before I was born, a classmate of my father in law murdered someone and kept the body in his basement until he was caught years later. Non gunshot homicide. The homicide rate is almost entirely within major metropolitan areas of the United States. It is largely confined to the most impoverished areas which happen to have the largest ratio of non-white to white people. Handguns are most often used, rifles to a much lower extent, semi-auto rifles to a statistically irrelevant.
I live in a small city of 120,000.
A City is actually a settlement with a Civic Charter of some kind - a town is a large settlement with ammenities above those of a village. In the UK Towns are self-proclaimed Civil Parishes which are towns - unless they are Borough Towns - Cities have Royal Charters.
So Winchester, population 42,000 (ish) is a city while Basingstoke, population 140,000 (ish), is only a town.
In the US I would say a good rubric would be whether you have a City Mayor, whether you have regularly sitting upper courts, and a professional Police Dept. as opposed to a Sheriff.
In any case - you clearly aren't in the Wild West and it sounds like you don't need a gun. Or rather, if you need a gun then I need a gun - given the number of people in my city who have been raped or beaten near-to death.
So the NRA is saying the only solution is to put Armed Guards in the schools. Splendid! Fire fighters were attack as well, so I suppose the solution is to equip the fire fighters with weapons as well. I just want to see them attacking a fire with their live munitions around their belts. ..
Of course to give weapons in schools won’t stop this kind of attack (do we have figures about killing spree actually stop by men or women with weapons. Because I think, (but I am not sure) that a lot of Americans have weapons. So, how many killing were avoided? How many persons coming in a crowd and opening fire were actually prevented to do so by a casual armed Americans (Armericans: sorry, I couldn’t resist)? In the army, attacking even armed people, especially not trained ones, by surprise, is call an ambush. And amateurish fighters can do a lot of damage because they have the surprise. So, how armed guards will stop killing: well, they can’t.
ICantSpellDawg
01-02-2013, 01:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
What do you guys think?
Papewaio
01-02-2013, 02:44
Annual death statistics for Australia in 2010 with a pretty bubble graph:
http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/annual-loss-recorded-a-year-in-the-life-of-death-20121228-2bz8u.html
Picture:
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/12/29/3919080/cancer.jpg?rand=1356742625991
An Aussie 15 year old boy has an 8% chance of dying by 60. A US 15 yr old boy a 14% chance by 60.
ICantSpellDawg
01-02-2013, 05:14
Annual death statistics for Australia in 2010 with a pretty bubble graph:
http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/annual-loss-recorded-a-year-in-the-life-of-death-20121228-2bz8u.html
Picture:
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/12/29/3919080/cancer.jpg?rand=1356742625991
An Aussie 15 year old boy has an 8% chance of dying by 60. A US 15 yr old boy a 14% chance by 60.
Your homicide rate is 1/4 ours. Why isn't it listed in that picture?
Montmorency
01-02-2013, 05:25
That's a falsehood.
Edit: I think it may be a syntactic misapprehension on my part. You mean to say that the Australian homicide rate is one-fourth of the American, and not that the Australian homicide rate is 25% greater than the American - right?
ICantSpellDawg
01-02-2013, 06:05
That's a falsehood.
Edit: I think it may be a syntactic misapprehension on my part. You mean to say that the Australian homicide rate is one-fourth of the American, and not that the Australian homicide rate is 25% greater than the American - right?
it is approx 25% of our rate.
Here are some stats from the UN (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1). While we have a higher rate, our rate has been going down at a faster rate than Australia's for the past few years, in spite of expanded firearms rights following the assault weapon ban expiration in the 90's. This, coupled with our radically different demographics, our much higher concentration of large urban areas totaling 250k individuals or more, and the fact that we are much more accessible to extremely impoverished and under educated immigrants (which I welcome as they need our opportunity the most) begins to answer some of the questions regarding why we have a higher homicide rate than australia in this instance. Our ownership and protected status of firearms absolutely explains our higher gun homicide rate and the higher success rate of suicide attempts, but it has an inverted relationship with violent crime globally. Our second amendment is a unique and cherished thing in this country for self defense and as insurance against abusive government and, I believe, that the data is consistent with a pro-access argument of guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally sound Americans.
Australia
2010
229
1.0
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2009
263
1.2
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2008
261
1.2
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2007
255
1.2
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2006
281
1.4
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2005
259
1.3
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2004
264
1.3
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2003
302
1.5
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2002
318
1.6
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2001
310
1.6
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2000
302
1.6
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1999
343
1.8
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1998
285
1.5
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1997
321
1.7
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1996
312
1.7
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1995
326
1.8
CTS/NSO
CJ
United States of America
2010
12996
4.2
National police
CJ
United States of America
2009
13636
4.4
National police
CJ
United States of America
2008
14180
4.6
National police
CJ
United States of America
2007
14831
4.9
National police
CJ
United States of America
2006
14990
5.0
National police
CJ
United States of America
2005
14860
5.0
National police
CJ
United States of America
2004
14210
4.8
National police
CJ
United States of America
2003
14465
5.0
National police
CJ
United States of America
2002
14263
4.9
National police
CJ
United States of America
2001
14061
4.9
Papewaio
01-02-2013, 08:28
it is approx 25% of our rate.
Here are some stats from the UN (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1). While we have a higher rate, our rate has been going down at a faster rate than Australia's for the past few years, in spite of expanded firearms rights following the assault weapon ban expiration in the 90's. This, coupled with our radically different demographics, our much higher concentration of large urban areas totaling 250k individuals or more, and the fact that we are much more accessible to extremely impoverished and under educated immigrants (which I welcome as they need our opportunity the most) begins to answer some of the questions regarding why we have a higher homicide rate than australia in this instance. Our ownership and protected status of firearms absolutely explains our higher gun homicide rate and the higher success rate of suicide attempts, but it has an inverted relationship with violent crime globally. Our second amendment is a unique and cherished thing in this country for self defense and as insurance against abusive government and, I believe, that the data is consistent with a pro-access argument of guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally sound Americans.
Australia
2010
229
1.0
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2009
263
1.2
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2008
261
1.2
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2007
255
1.2
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2006
281
1.4
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2005
259
1.3
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2004
264
1.3
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2003
302
1.5
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2002
318
1.6
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2001
310
1.6
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
2000
302
1.6
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1999
343
1.8
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1998
285
1.5
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1997
321
1.7
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1996
312
1.7
CTS/NSO
CJ
Australia
1995
326
1.8
CTS/NSO
CJ
United States of America
2010
12996
4.2
National police
CJ
United States of America
2009
13636
4.4
National police
CJ
United States of America
2008
14180
4.6
National police
CJ
United States of America
2007
14831
4.9
National police
CJ
United States of America
2006
14990
5.0
National police
CJ
United States of America
2005
14860
5.0
National police
CJ
United States of America
2004
14210
4.8
National police
CJ
United States of America
2003
14465
5.0
National police
CJ
United States of America
2002
14263
4.9
National police
CJ
United States of America
2001
14061
4.9
Australia is more urbanized then the US (89 vs 82%)
As for gun deaths Au has less per capita, and it looks like it is dropping faster
2001 -> 2010
US 4.9 to 4.2 = 9% drop
AU 1.6 to 1.0 = 48% drop
If you can supply the 1995 homicide rates for US I can calculate out the percentage change.
For the US to have a similar percentage drop it would have had to have around 6.7 /100k in 1995.
PS the chart lists only some of the potential deaths... Mainly the large or outliers... It mentions this in the bottom right corner as a partial listing.
a completely inoffensive name
01-02-2013, 08:44
I trust the FBI's statistics more than the UN.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
I have already brought these figures up before. 50% reduction in such crimes since 1991. Equal or better than Australia.
Papewaio
01-02-2013, 08:52
I think you will find the UN sources from the local police as noted in the table.
If guns provided safety then your homicide rates would be less then Australia. The end results is an epic fail at having four times the rate. So either guns don't act as shields or it means when people get angry or snap they have better tools for the job at hand.
Stupidity evolved, a US newspaper supposedly published a list of (legal) gun owners, how dumb can you be now burglars know who probably doesn't have one. Way to go. Am I so smart or are some people so dumb.
a completely inoffensive name
01-02-2013, 10:13
I think you will find the UN sources from the local police as noted in the table.
If guns provided safety then your homicide rates would be less then Australia. The end results is an epic fail at having four times the rate. So either guns don't act as shields or it means when people get angry or snap they have better tools for the job at hand.
Never argued that guns stopped crime. Haven't thought that since I read Freakonomics and did my own looking into the question. I am merely contesting the idea that guns cause more crime. A statement which is proven false by the data provided.
Everyone who was around back in the early 1990s will probably tell you that much of the crime reduction was due to the subsidence of the crack cocaine (or was it crystal meth, I don't remember) wave that happened in the late 80s/early 90s and tougher criminal punishments for violators, especially in regards to drugs.
EDIT: Or if they really bought into the message of the book, they will tell you about the hidden miracle of prevalent abortions.
Crack is just boiled out cocaine it isn't nearly as addictive as some say. Glad the meth isn't here though, poor man's drugs, always bad.
a completely inoffensive name
01-02-2013, 10:58
Crack is just boiled out cocaine it isn't nearly as addictive as some say. Glad the meth isn't here though, poor man's drugs, always bad.
My understanding of it is that crack cocaine is simply the crystalline form of the pure substance as opposed to the powdered form that wall street people snort in movies. It is "more addictive" than powdered cocaine due to the difference in consumption methods from crack cocaine and powdered.
EDIT: This is just my understanding of it. Unlike many people who have taken chemistry classes, I have no interest in learning all the ins and outs of illegal and damaging drugs.
You got it right. Boiling it cleans it, it becomes a clumb of almost pure cocaine that can only be smoked, but it isn't any more harmfull.
ICantSpellDawg
01-02-2013, 13:11
The US violent crime rate has been plummeting. The violent crime rate in aussieworld has been increasing over the same time period - 91 to 2007 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-02-2013, 13:25
It's a moot argument anyway. This country is flooded with guns, and criminals will always get them.
And the law abiding gun owners would raise serious hell if the government ever tried to take them away. Guns are here to stay in America.
We did it here.
First you make people feel safe, so they don't feel they need guns; the US really should be sliding that way given that you're averaging a mass-killing a year now. Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty. We managed it after WWII when this country was awash with weapons and paranoid about Germans.
The problem with US gun control is purely one of attitude, not logistics.
rory_20_uk
01-02-2013, 13:49
In Eastern Europe after the USSR collapsed the countries were awash with levels of unregulated weaponry rarely seen. And they also managed to restrict these without civil war.
~:smoking:
Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty.
Automatic weapons are essentially banned anyway. They are quite difficult to get, and legally obtained ones are rarely, if ever, used in crimes.
rory_20_uk
01-02-2013, 18:16
As I understand it, automatic weapons have no place in committing a crime as their purpose is suppressive fire which used as such would require a lot of ammo and either needs to have a proper emplacement or be mounted on a van - neither option are particularly appealing.
Semi automatic assault rifles have the accuracy to kill at range, the punch to get through body armour and outside of the military a couple of bullets is going to adequately suppress all but the most terminally enthusiastic would be heroes.
~:smoking:
Tellos Athenaios
01-02-2013, 18:30
Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?
Killed? Fewer, because even the criminals would ordinarily not have a gun to protect themselves either. They wouldn't need to.
Raped? About the same. You see, rape is typically committed by a person who is implicitly or explicitly trusted by the victim. Or by someone with apparent authority who cannot be challenged. For example, a police officer raping a teacher at gun point as you pointed out in the police abuse thread IIRC. Or law enforcement abusing their position to rape sex workers in the USA (depressingly common).
Again it seems we're back at this funny place called the United States of Assault, wherein every issue is best solved with a gun. Until you realise that yes, the bad guys carry guns and will use them too. So it solves exactly nothing.
Papewaio
01-03-2013, 00:58
Your country is smaller than several of our states, and we probably have more modern firearms just in Texas than were ever in the hands of British citizens.
Are you talking about population or land area?
UK has twice the population of California which is the most populous state.
London is 50% more populated then New York City which is the USAs largest city.
London is about the same population as LA + NYC.
ICantSpellDawg
01-03-2013, 01:31
Lethality of violent crime in the U.S. is clearly greater, most likely as a direct result of our Second Amendment and less strenuous gun laws. Our rates of violent crime are some of the lowest in the OECD, however and absolutely low when compared globally.
This argument needs to be framed in a different way. There are arguments for and against easy access to lethal firearms. In the United States, we have the benefit of the 2nd amendment and related jurisprudence which most nations on earth do not have. This gives us the upper hand, but if we aren't careful, even the protected status could be compromised. The proposed AWB effectively illegalizes most handguns in common use. The fact that they have removable magazines with conspicuous pistol grips below the action makes them assault weapons. Even though the mini-14 ranch rifle bypasses the "evil features" list as it has a traditional rifle stock, they specifically mention it for a ban, making sure that any common use semi-automatic is eliminated unless it is specifically a hunting rifle. On the one hand, reliance on only allowing hunting weapons puts them within the target of being overturned as the 2nd amendment has history in self defense from human beings and not just bears and rabid squirrels. The more they rely on "the rights of hunters" the more tenuous their position will be, but the more in danger our actual rights will be or radical elimination.
Papewaio
01-03-2013, 01:33
I'm saying the UK is tiny, and the USA is large. Our population dwarfs it, the amount of firearms is incomparable, and so saying "well, it worked for them" is not a convincing argument.
And never mind the cultural differences. :sly:
Yet none of your cities dwarf London. Your largest state population is half the size of UK. So size shouldn't be an issue.
If you are saying the US is too large for change then that is far more dangerous then more or less guns.
Cultures that are living change and adapt. If you don't you lose momentum until either a systemic shock or replacement.
Montmorency
01-03-2013, 02:40
For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.
ICantSpellDawg
01-03-2013, 03:00
I posted:
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=youtube_gdata_player) in facebook.
Friend A replied:
doogie howser should stick to medicine. this dude is sort of ridiculous -- he makes a big deal out of "the media" cherry-picking its statistics, then does the exact same thing himself, noting that the violent crime rate in the UK is 3.5 times that of the US (!!!!!) while totally downplaying the fact that the murder rate in the US is three times that of the UK.
the post-newtown conversation is about preventing mass shootings, and i think it's pretty clear that, in this case, murder rate is a more relevant statistic to look at than overall violent crime rate. (it should go without saying that making an apples-to-apples comparison between violent crime statistics collected by two different agencies in two different countries is going to be difficult.)
i also don't see the relevance of his point that crime is concentrated in cities. this, of course, isn't news. but it's also the case that these mass shootings don't seem to go on in cities nearly as often as they go on in suburban/rural areas -- newtown, virginia tech, columbine. violent crime in cities is a problem, but it's a separate issue.
in particular, though, the thing that leads me to believe that this dude is retarded is him making a big deal out of the US having "six times the number of large metropolitan areas!" as the UK. well, we also have five times the population of the UK. if he wanted to make some meaningful comparison, he'd look at the fraction of the US and UK populations that live in cities.
some other statistics are probably helpful. in england and wales, 9.3% of homicides are committed with a firearm, and in scotland it's 2.2%:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
in the US it's in the neighborhood of 66%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
this, to me, says a lot about why the murder rate is so much lower in the UK. -- the non-firearm-related murder rates are actually pretty similar. it seems like guns play a significant role here.
he's right that banning the AR-15 (or any other assault rifle) isn't going to eliminate violent crime. but saying that they account for only a small portion of gun-related crime is like saying that no one was killed by nuclear weapons last year. it's true, sure, but it doesn't mean that there's a compelling reason why people should have them
Friend B replied:
While in Oklahoma, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with some locals. Consensus is that there is no purpose for the AR-15 or related weapons in civilian life other than to make dudes (or chicks) feel like they got bigger wangs
I replied:
The fact that rifles of any type are involved in approximately 400 homicides on average per year is a foolish thing to bring up? Or that 3x as many people died from automobile accidents as they did from ALL gun related homicides in the U.S. over the past 3 years? I think that perspective is an important thing to bring up in a discussion about radically diminishing the right of individuals to defend themselves in an effective way.
The "choose your own crime stats" title clued me in to the idea that he might choose his own crime stats. I think that violent crime is an important metric and appreciate that you think it goes without saying that comparing one set of data between the FBI and Home Office might not be as congruous as we'd like it to be. Also, you are discussing the "murder rate", but I haven't read that rate anywhere. I've read "homicide rate" as 4.2 in the U.S. and 1.7 in the U.K. for 2011. As you know, homicide is the killing of another person, whereas murder is the unlawful killing of another person, with malice aforethought; a subset of homicide.
Without question, violence in the United States appears to be more lethal than in most other OECD countries, but in many cases violence tends to occur with more regularity in those other countries than you'd expect and, I believe that the availability of firearms in civil society does not increase rates of violence which is important to consider when defending or attacking fundamental and Constitutionally protected rights.
Thank you for answering my request without bringing up wangs, even though you used the words ridiculous and retarded to describe someone who was arguing opposing points. Although, Doob did discuss the issue of gun rights with a viable sample-sized group, I'm sure.
Friend B replied:
Again owning an AR-15, any "assault weapon" or stockpiling guns and ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with the "right of individuals to defend themselves in an effective way". And if more people die by accident or improper use of firearms than in homicides perhaps that is even more of a reason to impose limitations. yes, the sample size in question was men and women with above average sized wangs.
I replied:
That depends on who or what we are defending ourselves from. There can be limits to gun ownership, as the NFA and background check laws show. A convincing argument can be made in the use of the word "Infringe" rather than "Abridge" in the clause, although this has been believed to be a difference of inches rather than miles. Sensible, arguably constitutional limits might include high capacity magazine bans which I don't like but might make sense or the idea that people must pass checks at gun shows which I am in favor of as this is clearly an unnecessary risk when easy internet access is available at the shows (as they weren't in the 80's). If you believe that the right to bear arms on an individual basis extends only to hunters and those practicing to hunt, then you would disagree, but I don't believe that this approaches the core of the reasoning behind founding or modern Constitutional jurisprudence, except in minority dissent.
Friend B replied:
Ok. What type of nonhuman that exists in reality do you need an AR-15 to protect yourself from?
I replied:
No, AR-15's are primarily designed to kill/stop human beings. I'm not suggesting that most people use them for any other purpose (other than the most common "preparing to use them for this purpose"). I maintain that we have a right to kill/stop humans to an extent in special circumstances around the protection of our own life/liberty or that of those immediately around us. This right has been limited with regards to indiscriminate spraying using select-fire automatic weapons, but the death rate using these weapons - which are now in common use - is exceptionally low. These weapons are effective for this purpose and this purpose is viable, to a reduced extent, for civilians in a Democratic Republic with a right to arm themselves with an eye on government. It's important to try to show that these policies and concerns are reasonable and that they resonate without using Constitutional protection in and of itself as an argument. That is a legal, historical and possibly a moral argument, but to leave it aside allows people to discuss ideas without undue merit, other than in a circular argument.
To decry the 2nd amendment as an archaic policy against an abusive government because of the perception that we are living at the "end of history" is foolish when discussing these issues, as it is when discussing opposition to the Patriot Act, or "stop and frisk", or eliminating due process for non-citizen individuals in areas controlled by the U.S. government, or extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens abroad. I'm sure that I don't like government making these decisions and these decisions are ominous.
Friend A replied:
comparing raw numbers of automobile accidents and gun homicides is totally pointless; how many people get in a car every day and how many people handle a gun? and the number of deaths from one says absolutely nothing about the number of deaths we should tolerate via the other. and the discussion is about mass shootings, not overall violent crime, so bringing in violent crime stats doesn't add anything.
anyone who sincerely believes that the AR-15 is what's standing between democracy and tyranny is vastly out of touch with reality.
maybe it's cute to split hairs over the exact wording of the second amendment, but real people are really dying. if you think that's acceptable, great, but i don't. banning assault rifles would help stop at least some of these shootings, without taking away other effective means of defending your home -- how about a shotgun?
I replied:
Real people are really dying. Everyday. The question of cost vs benefit should be at the heart of every serious policy decision, not just emotional pandering, even though that isn't going anywhere soon. Things can be done, but what is being floated is not acceptable. I place a high value on the Second amendment as it is currently understood. You claim that the AR-15 is not what is "standing between democracy and tyranny". What is? I believe that there are quite a few things occupying that space. Bloomberg says that stop/frisk/confiscate without probable cause isn't isn't a breach of the search and seizure restrictions in the 4th amendment. You say semi-automatic guns are not part of the right of citizens to be armed, and their reasoning is anachronistic in the first place. Anwar alAwlaki, a U.S. citizen, shouldn't have been convicted prior to his execution, and he didn't actually need his 5th amendment right of due process because of reasons. In fact, lets just scrap that stuff. Those things arn't what is holding our nation of laws together, but rather details which have no bearing on the future of expansive freedom. Lets just use the LCD of exactly what the framers meant when they said "free speech", start prosecuting "pornography" and leave protected speech to cover only what is "informative". Good people say good things, pornography or music with curses in it isn't what is holding our country together anyway.
I re-replied:
and, technically, there are more civilian owned guns (approx 270mil ) in the U.S. than there are registered private passenger vehicles (approx 254mil). If there are approx 200mil licensed drivers and the average round trip commute is 46 minutes, that is about 153 mil hours spent in a car per day all together. If there are approx 9 million CCW holders in the U.S., they carry approx 8 hours per day maybe - about 72 million hours spent with concealed weapons. tee hee hee
Friend A replied:
the people driving their cars are operating them; someone carrying a firearm isn't operating it the whole time, or else something has gone very wrong. you're also completely missing the larger point that the two have nothing to do with each other, so you bringing up car accidents accomplishes nothing.
and i agree that costs and benefits should be weighed -- that's completely obvious. we're never going to prevent all bad things from happening, but there's certain low-hanging fruit that should be taken care of. among that is the ban of assault rifles. i'm saying that doing so would provide a clear benefit at pretty much no cost.
and i don't know, dude, but it looks to me like there are a whole lot of democracies around the world featuing citizens that stave off tyranny without access to the AR-15. you can fear-monger all you'd like, but it's never going to be a compelling argument.
and, back to the original post, i still think that this dude is a tard. there are a lot of people who want to Act Serious and talk about Data but either have no ability to understand what they're looking at or else use this Seriousness as a mask. this dude is among them
I replied:
I disagree that the guy is retarded and I think that he makes good points about our purportedly violent culture when compared with actual rates of violence elsewhere. It is convenient to disregard points that don't contribute to your larger argument, but I try to recognize legitimacy in the arguments of others where it exists. His point is that we are a much less violent culture than is currently believed and, because gun rights are important, this point directly reduces the cost side of my cost benefit understanding. Your point that shootings are higher as a result of our gun rights is legitimate aNd increases the cost side of my understanding. Are there things that can be done to help lower the cost side without substantially reducing the benefit side? Sure. Without question, the weight that I give the benefit site is greater than the weight you give it
Friend C:
I just listened to something on the public radio today about gun violence and that hand guns are the main cause of these kinds of deaths as opposed to rifles. I don't have time to read what all you guys think, but Chris (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=16308464), my thoughts are that rifles aren't the problem, nor hand guns, or rules around them -- but the issue really lies with individuals believing that someone else's life isn't important or valuable.
I replied:
That sums up the cause of just about every problem that we have. Hit the nail on the head.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-03-2013, 03:28
You're making a conscious effort to misunderstand me!
No - he isn't.
The American idea contains the notion that some day the people might have to overthrow the government.
This is a European idea - you imported your variant from Britain after we chopped the head off our Divinely Ordained King. People forget that now, but that's what Cromwell and the others believed they were doing. Without the English Civil War your rebellion would have been inconceivable.
It is part of our psyche, and a vital part of our collective morality over the ages.
And ours.
Take away the guns, and we enter into a new chapter of total submission to the government, and most Americans are not keen on that.
The government is elected by the people - the people submit to the rule of Law when they are governed, not to the government itself. QED - the British are no more submissive than the Americans. We chose to ban most firearms, and there is little support for lifting the ban.
Far more dangerous is the American tendency to see "the Government" as something remote. That discourse has crossed the Atlantic and infected my country. Something I am not grateful more.
Newsflash people - politicians are human beings. Don't like them? Stand for election or shut up.
Secondly, London is a unique city that doesn't really compare to anything we have here. Sure, it's big. We have many, many large cities that don't have the benefit of london's suffocating surveillance. Good luck going into LA, or Dallas, or St. Louis, or Detroit with the intention of confiscating all the guns![/QUOTE]
And yet - we did. There are some guns in London - not many. We got most people to give theirs up before there was any surveillance.
Nor is the size issue what Americans make it out to be - your population is about 5-6 times that of the UK, the population of Texas is about half that of England. The US is governable at the state level to the same extent as the UK or any European country.
Bottom line - America isn't really special. It's the UK circa 1950 - corrupt antiquated law enforcement, awash with weapons, and no healthcare unless you're rich.
I'm sorry GC, but that is literally the way your country looks to me - not all of that's a bad thing - but you have some serious problems that everyone over here has already dealt with
For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.
It's something like 8 million New Yorkers to 7 million Londoners - logistically that's not a big difference.
ICantSpellDawg
01-03-2013, 03:41
I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."
That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.
This is a good point. We live in a nation that is expansive enough that Washington D.C. is further from me than London is from Brussels. They understand that reference and have been reluctant to give up their own sovereignty to the E.U. as they should be. I live in the Northeast, in "close" proximity to D.C.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-03-2013, 03:50
I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."
That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.
311,000,000 people in the US, 62,000 in the UK - we are not "such a small country". The population of England is 50,000,000 or there about - there is no state government - I share parliament with 62,600,000 other Britons.
I'd say my government should be just as remote as yours. We're also not under "tight control" - I'm lucky if I see a cop a week and I live in the "County Town" which is also one of the wealthiest and best resourced town in two or three counties. You can forget about CCTV, half of the cameras have no tape.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-03-2013, 03:52
I'm father from DC than London is from Istanbul. This is a very big country.
But we know space means less in the US - less than a hundred miles from me in a land where the people did not speak English until 50 years ago.
ICantSpellDawg
01-03-2013, 03:54
311,000,000 people in the US, 62,000 in the UK - we are not "such a small country". The population of England is 50,000,000 or there about - there is no state government - I share parliament with 62,600,000 other Britons.
I'd say my government should be just as remote as yours. We're also not under "tight control" - I'm lucky if I see a cop a week and I live in the "County Town" which is also one of the wealthiest and best resourced town in two or three counties. You can forget about CCTV, half of the cameras have no tape.
and yet you have higher violent crime rates per 100k? Interesting.
Papewaio
01-03-2013, 05:35
For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.
The state of New York has 19 million, NYC 8.2 million
London Metro is 13.7 million, Urban is 11.9M and with Greater London ~ 8.2M so it is the same size or larger depending on which urban planning metric one wishes to use... I for one don't think the medieval definition is the most apt.
Papewaio
01-03-2013, 05:41
I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."
That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.
Australia is only slightly smaller then the US 48 states. We are remote from each other with the average state size larger then Texas... So I'm not buying the geographic remoteness from government.
Montmorency
01-03-2013, 05:48
The state of New York has 19 million, NYC 8.2 million
To head off any potential ongoing equivocation:
Population [8]
• Estimate (2011) 8,244,910
• Metro 18,897,109 (1st)
Population [2]
• London 8,173,194
• Metro 13,709,000
ICantSpellDawg
01-03-2013, 06:35
Australia is only slightly smaller then the US 48 states. We are remote from each other with the average state size larger then Texas... So I'm not buying the geographic remoteness from government.
You don't have enough people with different ideas yet. Congratulations on your Independence from the the UK in 1942. Good luck with your troubles over the next hundred years of sovereignty as your population balloons from 23 mil to 315 million and the only common ground you have is someone else s illegitimate monarch and alcohol. Let us know if you need any ideas; if we don't implode in the next 20 years.
Culture is the crux of my argument anyway.
Yes, that's fine, the real problem is that you're unwilling to improve your culture.
It's almost like you say your culture is a problem but you're too proud of it to do anything about it.
I can understand the argument that we keep e.g. capitalism because we know no better alternative but to say that a problem shouldn't be solved because you're proud to have it seems really weird. And I mean you as in most Americans.
Submissive is also a relative term. To me Americans are so submissive to their gun culture that they're willing to watch their children get shot or even train them to do that to others in order to keep the pipe dream of being special and being able to overthrow the government. Europeans are not nearly that submissive to crazy ideas. ~;)
Ironside
01-03-2013, 09:41
Fairly good discussion you had there ICaSpeDa. I'm gonna requote one good data point there, since it's very relevant to the discussion, even if I won't comment on it this time.
in particular, though, the thing that leads me to believe that this dude is retarded is him making a big deal out of the US having "six times the number of large metropolitan areas!" as the UK. well, we also have five times the population of the UK. if he wanted to make some meaningful comparison, he'd look at the fraction of the US and UK populations that live in cities.
some other statistics are probably helpful. in england and wales, 9.3% of homicides are committed with a firearm, and in scotland it's 2.2%:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
in the US it's in the neighborhood of 66%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
this, to me, says a lot about why the murder rate is so much lower in the UK. -- the non-firearm-related murder rates are actually pretty similar. it seems like guns play a significant role here.
and yet you have higher violent crime rates per 100k? Interesting.
I did occur to me that you probably have a larger underreporting of violent crime than, say the UK. You have a large population that mistrusts the police and a more "manly" attitude, so I suspect that smaller violent crimes doesn't get reported as much. Does that explain the whole difference? No idea (but probably not), but it's worth to remember.
Sir Moody
01-03-2013, 09:57
can you name your source for the claim the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US - the only sources I can find was an article in the Mail in 2009 and a corresponding article in the Telegraph - hardly a reliable source since they were Anti Labour at the time
Papewaio
01-03-2013, 11:37
Your population is a lot smaller than ours. I would liken Australia to a super Canada. And culturally we are quite different.
Culture is the crux of my argument anyway.
(As long as Antarctic regions aren't counted). Canada is about 20% larger land area and about 50% more population then Au.
Canada is more like a super Australia with naughtier neighbors then the Kiwis.
As far as culture is concerned it is definitely a crux in this situation.
I don't think that middle class white America is as cultural diverse from Canada, Australia, UK and NZ as say Sweden is to Spain.
The Lurker Below
01-03-2013, 20:50
Far more dangerous is the American tendency to see "the Government" as something remote. That discourse has crossed the Atlantic and infected my country. Something I am not grateful more.
Not sure how goegraphy got involved with the "remoteness" of American gov't. Please stop it.
We the people do in fact get to elect 537 people to go to Washington, D.C. and represent us to the best of their ability. Yet those 537 cater to the countless lobbyists that represent everybody with enough money to pay for their services. It's not just Gun owners, old people, and foriegn nationals. Even Americas own cities recognize that to have a voice in Washington, you must have substantial lobbyists. It makes no difference that you have the vote, because you have no real influence.
Sorry, I know nothing of GB gov't. Is your gov't remote in that respect?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-03-2013, 23:44
Not sure how goegraphy got involved with the "remoteness" of American gov't. Please stop it.
We the people do in fact get to elect 537 people to go to Washington, D.C. and represent us to the best of their ability. Yet those 537 cater to the countless lobbyists that represent everybody with enough money to pay for their services. It's not just Gun owners, old people, and foriegn nationals. Even Americas own cities recognize that to have a voice in Washington, you must have substantial lobbyists. It makes no difference that you have the vote, because you have no real influence.
Sorry, I know nothing of GB gov't. Is your gov't remote in that respect?
Many things which are legal in the US are illegal in the UK. All UK politicians must declare outside interests and favours received - failure to do so, particularly for government ministers, breaches codes of conduct and can result is suspension or expulsion from the party.
Overall though - we don't have the problems you have at the moment, we have different ones.
I'll tell you where the US is different though - to have the same proportion of Representatives to electors as the UK, Canada, or Australia you would need around 3,000 sets in your Lower House.
Tellos Athenaios
01-04-2013, 00:23
The remoteness of government argument is interesting. In terms of geography, USA is much like Australia: there's a few fringes of population centers and most a whole big, void, nothingness. In terms of percentages, USA has more actual wilderness than the African continent, which says something.
So it stands to reason that remoteness is similar to that of Australia, but less pronounced than in Russia or Canada -- both of which "dwarf" the USA.
On the other hand when it comes to managing people, crime especially, what matters more tends to be the population centers. In that respect comparisons with the UK are not at all unfair. You say well, the USA "dwarfs" the UK, because it has about 5-6 times the population. Well, then, take the EU as a whole. Roughly double the population, over 70 official languages to contend with and more problems and conflicting interests than we care to mention. Still the old "where there is a will, there is a way" continues to ring true.
Simply put: I don't think there is any logical explanation that can point at empirical fact backing up the assertion that the USA cannot change its gun laws. The only thing preventing it is located between your collective ears.
We're all wrong, it's the lead! (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline#13572580506711&action=collapse_widget&id=3771381)
ICantSpellDawg
01-04-2013, 02:04
I did occur to me that you probably have a larger underreporting of violent crime than, say the UK. You have a large population that mistrusts the police and a more "manly" attitude, so I suspect that smaller violent crimes doesn't get reported as much. Does that explain the whole difference? No idea (but probably not), but it's worth to remember.
I do appreciate that you recognize significant demographic differences between the two countries that may affect rates. I agree that under-reporting could be a larger chunk if you agree that the same population might have much higher rates of homicide and cannot reasonably be compared with the UK.
ICantSpellDawg
01-04-2013, 02:06
can you name your source for the claim the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US - the only sources I can find was an article in the Mail in 2009 and a corresponding article in the Telegraph - hardly a reliable source since they were Anti Labour at the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png
It was a comparison between the FBI rates and Home Office. The data was presented in this video which I have been posting (https://www.youtube.com/user/AmidsTheNoise).
Ironside
01-04-2013, 08:49
I do appreciate that you recognize significant demographic differences between the two countries that may affect rates. I agree that under-reporting could be a larger chunk if you agree that the same population might have much higher rates of homicide and cannot reasonably be compared with the UK.
I agree on that you have an entirely different gun culture that would be very hard to change, for better or worse.
It's just weird that your crime areas are very polite until they shoot eachother to death. UK got very high violent crime statistics, while yours is very low. In part it's different definitions (for example, in the UK any sexual assult is an assult, in the US only forcible rape counts as an assult), but it's one area that it would be very good with an excellent summary report. Really needed to properly compare the data.
Murder is popular in crime statistics since it's hard to not notice the body, so it's suffering least from underreporting and classifications.
Sir Moody
01-04-2013, 10:06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png
It was a comparison between the FBI rates and Home Office. The data was presented in this video which I have been posting (https://www.youtube.com/user/AmidsTheNoise).
yes but what was the source? that is just an info graphic with no links to the source data so it cant be fact checked
I am not fundamentally doubting (we do have a problem with drunk violence over here) but I take any claims on statistics with a BIG pinch of salt unless they provide the links to the original data (wiki and youtube don't count)
It is entirely possible that the Home office counts offences the FBI doesn't consider violent crime - which would immediately invalidate any comparison
this is usually why we compare homicide rates - its one of the few crimes we universally recognize
My guess is that these stats compare violent crime but remove actual murders. Which provides a meaningless comparison.
My guess is that these stats compare violent crime but remove actual murders. Which provides a meaningless comparison.
The only meaningful comparison is the one with atmospheric lead levels.
Sir Moody
01-04-2013, 13:18
I just looked it up
Definition
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Data collection
The data presented in Crime in the United States reflect the Hierarchy Rule, which requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident be counted. The descending order of UCR violent crimes are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, followed by the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although arson is also a property crime, the Hierarchy Rule does not apply to the offense of arson. In cases in which an arson occurs in conjunction with another violent or property crime, both crimes are reported, the arson and the additional crime.
5.1 VIOLENT CRIME
Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed,
jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.
In published crime statistics, violent crime – both as measured by the British Crime Survey
(BCS) and by recorded crime – is grouped into two broad, high-level categories of violence
with injury and violence without injury. However, these categories are not directly comparable
between the BCS and recorded crime: e.g. the BCS violence categories include robbery, but
the police recorded crime violence categories do not (recorded robbery figures are shown
separately).
Just over half of all BCS violent incidents and just under half of all police recorded violence
against the person, resulted in injury to the victim.
• Violence with injury includes all incidents of wounding, assault with injury and (BCS
only) robbery which resulted in injury. Homicide is only included for police recorded
crime. Police recorded crime also includes attempts at inflicting injury, although the
BCS would not include these if no actual injury occurred.
• Violence without injury includes all incidents of assault without injury and (BCS only)
incidents of robbery which did not result in injury. Police recorded crime also includes
possession of weapons offences and a number of public order offences, such as
harassment.
so there we have it
FBI only includes actual violence
UK includes THREATS of violence - in fact only HALF the reported claims are actual violence - which funnily enough the Info graphic does show - the largest "sub" section (the blue line) is violent crime which had no injuries
you cant compare the data without filtering out that
FBI reports 386.3 per 100k for 2011
Filtering out the crimes the UK counts and FBI doesn't the UK reported 360259 crimes (total divided by half) I am getting 570.19 per 100k for 2011
so we are still higher however I am not sure on the US criteria for aggravated assault and the UK assault - as the UK website clearly states we count pushing and "jostling" (... Jostling? seriously...)
this does show the problem with comparing statistics between different countries - we all count different things
Sir Moody
01-04-2013, 19:34
well I am finally at home so can watch that video
as I suspected he fell into the immediate trap of think we were tracking the same thing - Violent Crime as reported by the FBI is not the same as Violent Crime reported by the UK
Murder rate on the other hand is the same across both
this of course doesn't mean he is wrong - just that he was working off non-comparable data
and doesn't even bring in the fact it only tracks recorded crime or approach the topic of unreported crime
that said I do agree somewhat with his overall message - less guns /= less violence - societies can still be massively violent without guns
however with the data he used you could say less guns = less murders (maybe because its harder to actually kill someone without a gun :2thumbsup:)
ICantSpellDawg
01-05-2013, 00:20
"Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force" -
Am I missing something? This is in the first description. The FBI uses both offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Greyblades
01-05-2013, 00:55
I think he's right on that point. That said, saying disparity is because of guns, or anything else for that matter, is a dubious claim considering that there are a multitude of differences between the two systems other than the presence of guns.
Sir Moody
01-05-2013, 02:14
Am I missing something? This is in the first description. The FBI uses both offenses which involve force or threat of force.
ack I missed that one... touche :yes:
still we cannot know without considerable more info how close what the FBI considers a violent crime and what the UK considers a violent crime actually are - primarily in what the definition of Aggrivated assault includes
Sir Moody
01-05-2013, 02:24
on a side note... I am seriously impressed by the FBI's website... it is considerable better designed when compared to the Home Office...
Ironside
01-05-2013, 09:57
I think he's right on that point. That said, saying disparity is because of guns, or anything else for that matter, is a dubious claim considering that there are a multitude of differences between the two systems other than the presence of guns.
That's why I requoted the data on what weapon that were used in murders. In the US, the weapon of choise for a murderer is a gun, on average. That's not the case in the rest of the west.
For the this far unspoken (but hinted by putting 2 and 2 together) idea that the lower assult rates in the US is because of the deterrent effect of guns, more data is needed, or rather studies so you can properly compare the data.
ICantSpellDawg
01-05-2013, 15:19
For the this far unspoken (but hinted by putting 2 and 2 together) idea that the lower assult rates in the US is because of the deterrent effect of guns, more data is needed, or rather studies so you can properly compare the data.
I don't know why the rate is lower. It could be the deterrent effect that people are more likely to face an on-the-spot death penalty for violent crimes committed. This likelyhood is lower in areas where high crime rates exist. In those areas, people committing crimes are more likely to have firearms while law abiding citizens are less likely to be able to threaten effective use of deadly force.
Personally, If my home were burglarized while I was in it, I have fallback plans. It is unlikely that I would venture out of the master bedroom as I do not have dependents that live in seperate bedrooms. I do, however keep most of my valuables in the bedroom. In the event that someone entered my bedroom during a burglary they would have a high likelihood of being killed or seriously injured. In city areas an assailant has the benefit of suprise and overwhelming effective deadly force.
In the event of multiple assailants (more than 1 or 2) my likelyhood of survival is considerably lower. It usually takes 3 or more shots of 9mm ammo to stop someone from what I read. In NY our magazine limits are 10 rounds. My ability to gain access to my locked firearm, coupled with their benefit of suprise, my imperfect aim in a dark environment would be a concern. My plan is to have firearms of multiple type and caliber strategically placed throughout my room behind planned cover. Eventually these strategic locations will be increased rthroughout the house, followed by all-weather wireless cameras and motion sensors which I will set to beep near my bed only.
My neigborhood is pretty safe due to the people who live there, so I'm not actually afraid of anything. This hobby is fun anyway. I think that most people misconstrue interest in weaponry with fear of some kind. I don't think this is fair. People don't plan footbal defense because they are afraid of people breaking into their homes and rushing their quarterback. They do it because they like football.
Dol Guldur
01-05-2013, 19:27
This says it all to me...
http://youtu.be/V-oNMHNrS-8
ICantSpellDawg
01-05-2013, 23:05
As per Suffolk County:
The following safety measures will be accepted as standard practice for the safeguarding of firearms:
UNLOADED and locked in a box or metal container.
UNLOADED and secured in a safe.
UNLOADED with a locking device attached and hidden in a secure location.
Keeping a loaded firearm, inside or outside of a safe would not be standard. Nowhere in the guide does it say that this is illegal or out of code. Carrying 24/7 with a "sportsman's" permit is not against the law, but it is against code in Suffolk and Nassau county and, although it will not result in prosecution, it will almost certainly result in a loss of your license by the granting authority. I'm pushing for concealed carry without amendment, but it is extremely difficult to attain, unless you are wealthy. Only people with tons of money are authorized, or some people with orders of protection in their favor. Equal protections? What do you expect from a "may-issue" state?
If the situation is other than standard it would stand to reason that other than standard storage was appropriate.
ICantSpellDawg
01-05-2013, 23:51
Wooow, that's insane. I literally went to a gun store/range and had my .38 in a half hour. Great place, good prices. If i wanted to get a concealed carry permit it would cost less than 200 bucks and would be very easy.
Oregon is great for gun enthusiasts, yet we have very little crime in general. Little crazy lately, but usually we're a very boring state, despite our evil lax gun laws.
Get the CCW asap. You don't have to carry, but it would be great to have if you ever need to. I had my Sportsman's license for almost a year before I bought a pistol.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-06-2013, 00:20
This says it all to me...
http://youtu.be/V-oNMHNrS-8
The problem being - if the madman had not had access to firearms then the lady wouldn't have needed the gun that was in her car.
ICantSpellDawg
01-06-2013, 01:41
The problem being - if the madman had not had access to firearms then the lady wouldn't have needed the gun that was in her car.
I've never known or met anyone who has suffered from gun-related violence, other than self-inflicted. I've lived in Illinois, Texas, Michigan, and New York. Gun violence is, no joke, a problem for urban minorities. For everyone else, guns are a hobby and a good idea to protect ourselves in the event that minorities leave urban areas, or that shtf with the government. Gun crime is statistical noise for everyone else. It's not even everyone else who is affected, but mostly minority victims. Sound racist? It is, but so are the stats. I like people who are different from me. I'm sorry that the stats are what they are. I don't mind that the United States is getting darker. I encourage more immigration and can't wait to make friends with people who have unique perspectives on life, cooking, politics. But gun crime is a problem for them. They need education, opportunity and will power to get out of it.
School shootings are a problem for young, anti-social, mostly white or affluent males. But the numbers are akin to school buses exploding.
Greyblades
01-06-2013, 02:15
1. What has race got to do with what's been said?
2. That you havent known or met anyone who has suffered from gun related violence is kinda irrelevent, I havent met someone who has malaria, it still happens. It's especially unsurprising as the whole point is that gun related violence is so deadly that finding someone who's suffered it and survived is unusual.
This says it all to me...I'd say the problem there is that the texan gun control should have been tougher so a lunatic wouldnt be able to get his hands on guns in the first place, they cant be so half assed about gun control if they want to stop such an occurance.
ICantSpellDawg
01-06-2013, 02:55
1. What has race got to do with what's been said?
2. That you havent known or met anyone who has suffered from gun related violence is kinda irrelevent, I havent met someone who has malaria, it still happens. It's especially unsurprising as the whole point is that gun related violence is so deadly that finding someone who's suffered it and survived is unusual.
I'd say the problem there is that the texan gun control should have been tougher so a lunatic wouldnt be able to get his hands on guns in the first place, they cant be so half assed about gun control if they want to stop such an occurance.
Race/Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic
3,669
3.7
(3.6--3.8)
1,843
1.8
(1.7--1.9)
5,512
2.7
(2.7--2.8)
Black, non-Hispanic
7,477
41.4
(40.4--42.3)
1,269
6.4
(6.0--6.8)
8,746
23.1
(22.6--23.6)
American Indian/Alaska Native
147
11.8
(9.9--13.6)
52
4.0
(3.0--5.3)
199
7.8
(6.7--8.9)
Asian/Pacific Islander
236
3.4
(3.0--3.9)
105
1.5
(1.2--1.7)
341
2.4
(2.2--2.7)
Hispanic
2,926
12.5
(12.0--12.9)
540
2.5
(2.2--2.7)
3,466
7.6
(7.4--7.9)
Total§
14,538
9.8
(9.6--10.0)
3,823
2.5
(2.4--2.6)
18,361
6.1
(6.0--6.2)
Race definitely has a place in discussions about Homicide. So does poverty and education.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm
This chart illustrates that even if we compare White Homicide rates it is still about a point higher than other like communities, so I cede some ground there.
Greyblades
01-06-2013, 03:10
I'm confused, what exactly are you trying to prove/say with racial statistics?
ICantSpellDawg
01-06-2013, 03:45
I'm not sure. Just that those rates and numbers are wildly out of step with the demographic representation. This means that it is part of the discussion.
PanzerJaeger
01-06-2013, 04:59
I'm confused, what exactly are you trying to prove/say with racial statistics?
Gun violence statistics in America are disproportionately concentrated among one minority racial/ethnic group. Thus, gun control efforts that impact all Americans would be punitive for the majority. Essentially, such statistics should not be used to underpin gun control measures, as it would be both misguided and unfair to take away gun freedoms from whites, asians, and hispanics because blacks kill other blacks at an unusually high rate.
It is the same with a lot of "America's" social problems. They are actually black America's social problems, but we are all asked to pay for them.
Greyblades
01-06-2013, 06:08
Big deal, every denomination has individuals who want to kill and with america's huge prevelance of guns you make it very easy to do so, who's group contains the biggest amount is utterly irrelevant.
From what has been said in this thread; the main reason I hear that you need them (for self and home defense) doesnt seem to have much to do with guns being useful but that they somewhat make up the inadequacies of local law enforcement. Idealy you should not need them and you should be trying to work to that ideal instead of pinning blame on racial groups.
PanzerJaeger
01-06-2013, 06:38
...Dude, big deal, every denomination has individuals who want to kill and with america's huge prevelance of guns you make it very easy to do so, who's group contains the biggest amount is irrelevant to those on the receiveing end.
It is not irrelevant to finding a solution to gun violence. If statistics are going to be used to push gun control as they are currently, those using them should be frank about what those statistics actually say. As has already been shown in this thread, gun violence has little correlation to gun ownership rates or availability. Instead, it is most correlated to racial and/or socioeconomic groups. A true effort to reduce gun violence would be aimed at altering the conditions that cause inner city blacks to kill one another. Blanket bans that impact millions of people in communities that do not have issues with gun violence would be a ham-handed, ideological band-aid to a much deeper rooted social problem that is politically incorrect to address.
From what has been said in this thread; the main reason I hear that you need them (for self and home defense) doesnt seem to have much to do with guns being useful but that they somewhat make up the inadequacies of local law enforcement. Idealy you should not need them and you should be trying to work to that ideal instead of pinning blame.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. The paramilitary-like police in post 9/11 America are too effective and too powerful, but you will never change that fundamental reality - not even in Britain.
This says it all to me...
http://youtu.be/V-oNMHNrS-8
Yes, it does, she's really crazy and indoctrinated. At least she admits it took her 45 seconds or so to realize that she might want to shoot back, 45 seconds in which a bullet proof vest offers much better protection than a gun since it covers more of your body than a gun in your pocket does.
She also forgets to mention that the perp came from an area with high atmospheric lead levels.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-06-2013, 23:07
Gun violence statistics in America are disproportionately concentrated among one minority racial/ethnic group. Thus, gun control efforts that impact all Americans would be punitive for the majority. Essentially, such statistics should not be used to underpin gun control measures, as it would be both misguided and unfair to take away gun freedoms from whites, asians, and hispanics because blacks kill other blacks at an unusually high rate.
It is the same with a lot of "America's" social problems. They are actually black America's social problems, but we are all asked to pay for them.
The New-York sniper was white, wasn't he?
This latest guy was white?
Sure - poor Blacks in Urban areas shoot each other more often than poor whites in rural areas, the same is true here, but the really heinous crimes that really justify restrictions aren't so demographically slanted.
You want to know why poor blacks in urban areas shoot each other more often?
Population density.
Montmorency
01-06-2013, 23:46
but the really heinous crimes that really justify restrictions
Begging the question.
You want to know why poor blacks in urban areas shoot each other more often?
Population density.
http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/McDermott/papers/warrior2009.pdf
:wink:
ICantSpellDawg
01-07-2013, 00:08
Begging the question.
http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/McDermott/papers/warrior2009.pdf
:wink:
Hahaha. Right, smart people have postulated something, it must be true. I have to admit, it sounded pretty flimsy on NPR. They are taking a number of things for granted.
Montmorency
01-07-2013, 00:19
? I haven't found any NPR articles on the subject. Anyway...
http://asr.sagepub.com/content/76/6/883.abstract
lthough gene by environment studies are typically based on the assumption that some individuals possess genetic variants that enhance their vulnerability to environmental adversity, the differential susceptibility perspective posits that these individuals are simply more susceptible to environmental influence than others. An important implication of this perspective is that individuals most vulnerable to adverse social environments are the same ones who reap the most benefit from environmental support. Using longitudinal data from a sample of several hundred African Americans, we found that relatively common variants of the dopamine receptor gene and the serotonin transporter gene interact with social conditions to predict aggression in a manner consonant with the differential susceptibility perspective. When social conditions were adverse, individuals with these genetic variants manifested more aggression than other genotypes, whereas when the environment was favorable they demonstrated less aggression than other genotypes. Furthermore, we found that these genetic variants interact with environmental conditions to foster schemas and emotions consistent with the differential susceptibility perspective and that a latent construct formed by these schemas and emotions mediates the gene by environment interaction on aggression.
What do you find problematic?
ICantSpellDawg
01-07-2013, 01:05
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2013/jan/03/tetrethyl-lead-and-crime/
Things like "we found higher concentrations of atmospheric lead in urban areas". This stands to reason as there has always been a higher density of cars in those areas. "The rates of violence for these areas was exceptionally high". Yes, it is an urban area with shoddy school systems, disconnected families which mentors criminal activity.
I'm all about new ideas. I'm willing to listen to them, but that guy - Leonard Lopate - asked no critical questions and simply said "I'm sold" at the end. Most of what was said was correlation. The guy pushing the study says that it went beyond correlation. I'm willing to listen to more of what he has to say, but I most certainly don't buy the argument.
Montmorency
01-07-2013, 01:20
Isn't that a response to Husar, then?
ICantSpellDawg
01-07-2013, 05:36
Here is a link (http://hlpronline.com/2010/04/johnson_commonuse/) to an Harvard Law and Policy Review article from 2010 detailing the expectations of the (then upcoming) McDonald v Chicago decision. I think that HLPR staff deftly discuss potential policy responses by the Gun Control lobby in the aftermath of DC v Heller. This is a well written and prescient article, well worth the read.
Here is an excerpt from the Conclusion:
I have concentrated here on particular question (http://092.me/)s and acts of legislation that are likely to be impacted by Heller and McDonald, and I have suggested places where the common use standard generates analytical puzzles or low predictability. These issues will consume time and energy but will be peripheral in terms of violence policy consequences. The reason is that gun prohibition is basically an all-or-nothing proposition. It rests on the logic that no guns equals no gun crime. No one expects the inventory to go to zero, but results depend on reductions that get relatively close to it. So supply-side regulations only make sense if we think that eventually they will make guns or the elusive subcategory “crime guns” relatively scarce. Heller makes that constitutionally impermissible. Most “crime guns” are ordinary handguns. Ordinary handguns kept for self-defense are explicitly protected under Heller.[46] (http://hlpronline.com/2010/04/johnson_commonuse/#_edn46)
Watch if you can bear to.
http://youtu.be/p1Ddb3oa5CE
Watch if you can bear to.So, Piers Morgan, after looking like an unhinged loon shouting down gun rights advocates who he invited on to debate, decided to make himself look better by inviting an actual unhinged loon on his show.
Can we cancel his show now?
ICantSpellDawg
01-09-2013, 01:54
That interview was dumb. Jones is a nut. Legitimate points in rapid fire, mixed in with conspiracy theories isn't helping the cause.
I do like it that he made one of the producers cry though. what a fruitcake.
Hooahguy
01-09-2013, 19:27
Can we cancel his show now?
With any luck he will deport himself.
There has been another school shooting, fortunately, a teacher was able to talk down the student. Unfortunately, some one did get hurt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608
ICantSpellDawg
01-11-2013, 00:27
There has been another school shooting, fortunately, a teacher was able to talk down the student. Unfortunately, some one did get hurt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608
Uh oh, he had a shotgun with enough ammo to shoot many people. Time to ban shotguns.
Papewaio
01-11-2013, 00:53
Kudos to the teacher and having the guts and ability to talk the student out of this.
rory_20_uk
01-11-2013, 10:03
Uh oh, he had a shotgun with enough ammo to shoot many people. Time to ban shotguns.
Don't be ridiculous! The fact that shotguns have limited use in rural areas and controlled environments means we should let everyone carry them around all of the time because having the ability to kill someone makes up for both cretinism and having a microphallus.
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.