The Community
General Category => Matters of Life and The Universe => Topic started by: Billy Underdog on February 27, 2018, 01:25:36 PM
-
With resent events it's easy to once again wonder "what the hell are the Americans thinking?"...
In which situation do anyone need to go to a 7-Eleven to buy a gun? When do anyone need a semi-automatic weapon at all? Can you really not see the relation between the liberal laws and crime and deaths connected with guns? Or the fact that other countries with alot more strickt laws more often than not have less of these? I really need some answers here.
I've grown up in a hunters home, i've been shooting both for sports and hunting, so i know my way around firearms. And i've come to the conclusion that they're completly unnecessary. We don't need to hunt for food, however much tastier wild game is. As for sports, laser simulation have become a more than good enough substitute. Self defence..? Well, what if there wasn't anything you need to defend against? There is a correlation between gun crimes and how available guns are.
"It's not the gun that kills, but the person firing it", i hear them say. That's just as stupid as saying it's the victim fault for getting in the bullets way. Without that gun, that person wouldn't have anything to fire.
We've got more than enough ways to kill each others anyway, it would just be a tiny bit harder...
-
I'm with you, Billy. Australia decided it had had enough of mass shootings, so it outlawed classes of weapons and engaged in a buyback program. Gun ownership in Australia is one-fourth the rate of gun ownership of the USA and its incidence of gun-related violence, including crime, self-inflicted, and accidental, is one-fourth that of the USA.
I see a pattern. :smug:
-
^^^^^^
^^^^^^
Sorry gentlemen, but you are both misinformed.
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ (https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/)
-
Gun ownership in Australia is one-fourth the rate of gun ownership of the USA and its incidence of gun-related violence, including crime, self-inflicted, and accidental, is one-fourth that of the USA.
Australia: 25 million people
USA: 327 million people
So, Australia has one fourth of the reported gun related crime than the United States, with one thirteenth of the population?
-
Worth noting that Australia had one of the highest percentages of mass shootings per capita in the world pre 1996.
Post 1996
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-gun-deaths-slashed-since-1996
Statistics don't lie...
-
Statistics don't lie...
True. But people do, and sometimes they're very subtle about it. For example, the article you linked to is true. But, what is it trying to convey? That firearm-related violence is continuing to decrease in Australia? Or that firearm-related violence is continuing to decrease in Australia due to the National Firearms Agreement of 1996?
There's a difference. And if it's the latter, it a lie. The rate of gun violence in Australia was decreasing along the same slope in the seven years prior to the enactment of the NFA as it has since then. Correlation is not causation.
Furthermore, the article mentions that there have been no mass-shootings in the past 20 years, whereas prior to that there were plenty. Well, yes and no. Let me explain:
If I was a government agency, and I changed the definition of "homicide" from "killing someone" to "alien invasion", I could issue a report stating that there had been no homicides in the past year. Magic! Doesn't mean people weren't getting killed.
Specific to the article's portrayal, they're not using a government definition of mass-shooting (which is 4+), they're using someone else's definition (more than 5). That changes things.
And when someone writes an article using disparate statistics to make their point, without pointing out that there has been no centering or normalization, the casual reader is going to come away with knowledge based on a lie. Even though the numbers themselves aren't made-up.
None of this is meant to disparage, diminish, or dismiss the hard work and care and concern people have put into to try and deal with a very serious issue. But people can be shit sometimes and it doesn't matter what side of the argument it's on. It still stinks.
-
Gun ownership in Australia is one-fourth the rate of gun ownership of the USA and its incidence of gun-related violence, including crime, self-inflicted, and accidental, is one-fourth that of the USA.
Australia: 25 million people
USA: 327 million people
So, Australia has one fourth of the reported gun related crime than the United States, with one thirteenth of the population?
Exactly !
Population size has to be taken into consideration.
-
Statistics don't lie...
True. But people do, and sometimes they're very subtle about it. For example, the article you linked to is true. But, what is it trying to convey? That firearm-related violence is continuing to decrease in Australia? Or that firearm-related violence is continuing to decrease in Australia due to the National Firearms Agreement of 1996?
There's a difference. And if it's the latter, it a lie. The rate of gun violence in Australia was decreasing along the same slope in the seven years prior to the enactment of the NFA as it has since then. Correlation is not causation.
Furthermore, the article mentions that there have been no mass-shootings in the past 20 years, whereas prior to that there were plenty. Well, yes and no. Let me explain:
If I was a government agency, and I changed the definition of "homicide" from "killing someone" to "alien invasion", I could issue a report stating that there had been no homicides in the past year. Magic! Doesn't mean people weren't getting killed.
Specific to the article's portrayal, they're not using a government definition of mass-shooting (which is 4+), they're using someone else's definition (more than 5). That changes things.
And when someone writes an article using disparate statistics to make their point, without pointing out that there has been no centering or normalization, the casual reader is going to come away with knowledge based on a lie. Even though the numbers themselves aren't made-up.
None of this is meant to disparage, diminish, or dismiss the hard work and care and concern people have put into to try and deal with a very serious issue. But people can be shit sometimes and it doesn't matter what side of the argument it's on. It still stinks.
I think it was probably an oversight on the writers behalf in using 5+ constituting a gun massacre or mass shooting. I've only ever heard government and law enforcement officials using 4+ as the criteria for what constitutes a gun massacre, in which you'll find the statistic wouldn't be any different anyway.
Botton line is Australia hasn't had one gun massacre like we've seen in the United States since the gun amnesty of 96. The average Joe Blow on the street would find it next to impossible to get their hands on a semi/fully automatic weapon unless they had ties to the criminal underworld or outlaw motorcycle gangs, in which the cost of obtaining one would be astronomical anyhow...Let alone for a 15yo school boy.
-
Exactly !
Population size has to be taken into consideration.
Don't you think those numbers might be in relation to the population.
Australia is one thing, but what about a country closer to the U.S. both geographically and culturally? Canada, f.ex? A country that most definitely have a strong hunting tradition.
And all stats aside, there's still no good arguments to why guns should be so easily available, or that semi-automatics should be available at all... Or why we even need any of them in the first place.
-
^^^^^^
Banning those guns is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the country with the highest death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 to 2015 is NORWAY.
When something tragic happens in the U.S., it gets more publicity and more air time in world news than most countries. This leads people to believe that the U.S. has the larger problem. This simply is not true.
-
Why focus on mass shootings in the first place? Why not talk about murders in general, which happen much more frequently and regularly?
UNODC murder rates (per 100,000 inhabitants) (Most recent year UNODC has published)
USA 4.88 (2015)
Finland 1.60 (2015)
France 1.58 (2015)
Sweden 1.15 (2015)
Denmark 0.99 (2015)
Australia 0.98 (2015)
Germany 0.85 (2015)
Norway 0.56 (2014)
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Clearly, gun control is not the only factor. I guess social security and/or social equality is very important too, and surely there's much more to take into account.
-
Banning those guns is irrelevant.
Why?
The fact of the matter is that the country with the highest death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 to 2015 is NORWAY.
If that's a fact, we did have one incident that's pulling the stats. Overall there's very little gun violence at all here.
When something tragic happens in the U.S., it gets more publicity and more air time in world news than most countries. This leads people to believe that the U.S. has the larger problem. This simply is not true.
Good to know that you're more informed about what's on Norwegian news than i am... :)
So, how about those arguments, though?
-
Gun ownership in Australia is one-fourth the rate of gun ownership of the USA and its incidence of gun-related violence, including crime, self-inflicted, and accidental, is one-fourth that of the USA.
Australia: 25 million people
USA: 327 million people
So, Australia has one fourth of the reported gun related crime than the United States, with one thirteenth of the population?
Exactly !
Population size has to be taken into consideration.
Both my numbers are rates per 100 people for gun ownership and gun deaths per 100,000 people. Apples to apples. Sure, Oz has a smaller population, but the rate per (X) people is something used to compare one nation to another. In this case, Australia's total guns equals the US total, divided by 13, then divided by 4. But the rate per (x) people is what we compare, and Straya's got one-fourth of both rates.
-
^^^^^^
The fact of the matter is that the country with the highest death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 to 2015 is NORWAY.
This is a good example of a statement that is true but misleading.
The first replier on the following webpage put it pretty well IMO, so I will quote them:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-death-rate-from-mass-public-shootings-higher-in-Europe-than-the-USA-despite-restrictive-gun-control-in-the-EU
"Moreover, several of the countries on the list are so small (Norway) that a single incident makes a big impact on the overall rate.
Here's what I think are the significant lessons of this data:
There's actually very little difference between any of these numbers. The rate in the US is .089; the rate in Britain is .027. Egads, we're four times as high, right? Nonsense. These are deaths per million, and both rates are well under one per million. In one country it's rare; in the other it's extremely rare. Norway's is almost 2 per million, but they only had one attack -- it just happened to be an extremely effective attack, and they're a tiny country."
Generally, statistics only work with high numbers. You know, if Person A rolls 2 dices 2 times in her entire life, and the results are "4" and "3 respectively", while Person B rolls 2 dices a Million times and her average result is "7", it would be statistically correct yet totally insignificant to say that that Person B's average result is twice as high as Person A's average result. Accordingly, since mass shootings are a relatively rare type of crime (especially in a country like Norway), statistics about them can be extremely misleading. That's one reason why I think that limiting a discussion of gun control to mass shootings is a very bad idea. Murders in general happen MUCH more frequently than mass shootings, so statistics about murder rates are much more likely to yield meaningful results. The second reason is that rates of mass murders seem less likely than rates of 'normal' murders to be affected by gun laws. That's because mass murderers can be assumed to be pretty determined people - probably determined enough to find a way of getting an effective weapon even if access to guns is difficult in their country. In contrast, the rates of more common types of murders would seem, I think, much more likely to be reduced if, as Snagglethooth put it, "the average Joe Blow on the street would find it next to impossible to get their hands on a semi/fully automatic weapon".
-
When something tragic happens in the U.S., it gets more publicity and more air time in world news than most countries. This leads people to believe that the U.S. has the larger problem. This simply is not true.
Well, if something tragic happens in the US, than it gets more publicity in world news than if something of the same proportions happens in Kongo, Iraq, Syria or Turkey - yes, that's most certainly true. But is the same thing true if the comparison is between incidents in the US vs. France, Norway or Germany? Not in my world. On German news, when e.g. terrorist attacks of similar proportions happen in France and Norway, the attack in Norway will get at least as much media attentian as the US one, likely more - simply because (a) Norway is closer to Germany, (b) it is a part of Western Europe, and (c) a terrorist attack is much more unusual in Norway than in the US. The attacks in France received HUGE media and public attention all over Europe. If, again, something of the same proportions happens in Kongo, Iraq, Syria or Turkey, European news are MUCH less interested in it.
-
the rate per (X) people is something used to compare one nation to another. In this case, Australia's total guns equals the US total, divided by 13, then divided by 4. But the rate per (x) people is what we compare, and Straya's got one-fourth of both rates.
Aye, it's called "per capita". Without that qualifier it looks like an apples to ball-bearings comparison :)
-
Why focus on mass shootings in the first place? Why not talk about murders in general, which happen much more frequently and regularly?
...
Clearly, gun control is not the only factor. I guess social security and/or social equality is very important too, and surely there's much more to take into account.
That's thoughtful, and I agree. Reading about a guy getting shot and killed while trying to score some heroin does not have the same "news impact" as a story about 20 school kids getting shot to death while trying to learn stuff at school.
Why do people want to kill other people? Why do people want to hurt other people?
Find the answer to those questions and solve the root issue, and you could leave loaded machine guns all over the place and no one would pick them up to harm others.
Obviously a fantasy, BUT!! We gotta do SOMETHING, right? So, what should we do?
Ban the ownership and use of personal vehicles.
Legalize drugs.
Stop taxing food.
Implement single-payer health care.
Change colleges from profit centers to education centers.
Other things.
Then look at firearms.
-
And I do apologize, as I was off on my Aussie numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Looks more like they have one-fifth the number of guns per 100 people as the USA... and less than one-tenth of the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.
Norway has just under a third of the guns/100 people and a sixth of the gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.
Switzerland has a fourth of the guns per 100 and a third of gun-related deaths per 100,000. Their spike is in suicides, where the rate is 13 times that of the homicide rate. In the USA, the suicide rate is roughly double the homicide rate.
Canada: a third of the guns per 100, a fifth of the gun-related deaths.
UK: Only 2.8 guns per 100 people compared to USA's 101.05, so that is one thirty-sixth of the USA rate. Gun-related deaths is 0.23 per 100K to the USA's 10.54 per 100K, which is one fourty-fifth of the US rate. I am seeing a pattern here, and I do not yet see a point where we hit diminishing returns.
Sweden, France, Austria, New Zealand, Iceland, and Finland all have rates of guns per 100 people roughly equal to those of Canada and Norway, about 30 per 100, which is about a third of the USA's 101 per 100.
Their rates of gun-related violence per 100K people vary. Finland is highest at 3.25, overwhelmingly suicides, and Germany is very low at 1.01. Iceland looks like an outlier, possibly erroneous, at only 0.07. I'm not going to consider Iceland in this discussion, given what may be incomplete data about it.
The other states, however, definitely fit a pattern. You can't guarantee a linear drop in gun-related deaths corresponding with reduction in guns per 100 people, but that's because some nations seem to be more effective than others, making those nations with only directly proportional reductions in gun-related deaths go to the bottom of the curve.
The USA has the highest rate of suicides per 100K people among all nations. It does not have the highest homicide rate among all nations, but is on par with Nicaragua. Going to nations normally considered to be industrialized and Western, the USA has the highest homicide rate: Canada is second place, with a homicide rate one-ninth that of the USA.
So, again, I see the pattern of fewer guns, fewer gun-related deaths, at least proportionally if not better.
They're not arming teachers. They simply have fewer guns. And if that's not the solution, then the only other major difference I see is a comprehensive welfare state package, including support for the poor and universal health care.
-
They're not arming teachers. They simply have fewer guns. And if that's not the solution, then the only other major difference I see is a comprehensive welfare state package, including support for the poor and universal health care.
If there weren't any firearms, there would be zero firearm-related violence.
If there weren't any ammunition, there would be zero firearm-related violence.
How close to that goal can we, as human beings, actually get? Because the firearm barn door has been wide open for a very long time. Really, isn't that the goal though? If so, why not ban all firearms everywhere. Not just private ownership, but police and military as well. All of them. Make it illegal to manufacture firearms. Someone caught 3D printing a zip gun? Life in prison - no parole. Make the penalties so harsh that it takes those folks out of the society equation.
And I don't mean just assault-style weapons. I mean every tool that has been created to shoot a projectile. Shotguns, flintlocks, bolt action rifles, .38 specials, M72 anti-tank rockets, howitzers, cannons, pellet guns, etc. And while we're at it, let's include bows and their variants, blow guns, javelins, spears, slingshots, etc. Anything that can do harm from a distance.
Of course, all ammunition needs to go as well.
Who needs any of that shit?
It came to my attention that seventeen years ago a man armed with a kitchen knife killed eight students and teachers at a school in Japan. Injured thirteen others. That's quite a while ago, and doesn't happen a lot, but why take the chance?
How would you like it if it was someone you loved that was a victim of such an attack?
Ban edged tools. All of them. Kitchen knives, cavalry swords, pocket knives, etc.
ANYTHING less is an admission that there is an acceptable level of violence.
...
We, as the society of humanity on this planet, cannot even get rid of nuclear weapons. How in the hell are we going to realistically approach the topic at hand? By slow degrees? By manipulating the populace into accepting small concessions to firearms ownership that will eventually snowball into an avalanche of complete bans?
Personally, as long as there is someone else out there who thinks they need to have a gun, I'll keep mine. And when I'm a half-invalid 85 year old man and three guys break into my home to steal food because they're family is starving, and they're willing to kill me to get that food, I will hopefully still have the option of shooting them with a 3 inch magnum 00 shell out of my 12 gauge. Otherwise I guess I'll just get murdered.
-
Side note: on threads like this, I'm pretty willing to say my piece and then let everyone else have their turn and then call it a day, maybe going for 3 or 4 rounds of posts, tops. More than that, and I'm risking my ability to hear others because of my desire to shout out and be heard.
-
More than that, and I'm risking my ability to hear others because of my desire to shout out and be heard.
Could you type that louder please? :)
-
More than that, and I'm risking my ability to hear others because of my desire to shout out and be heard.
Could you type that louder please? :)
MORE THAN THAT, AND I'M RISKING MY ABILITY TO HEAR OTHERS BECAUSE OF MY DESIRE TO SHOUT OUT AND BE HEARD.
How's that? :smug:
-
Personally, as long as there is someone else out there who thinks they need to have a gun, I'll keep mine. And when I'm a half-invalid 85 year old man and three guys break into my home to steal food because they're family is starving, and they're willing to kill me to get that food, I will hopefully still have the option of shooting them with a 3 inch magnum 00 shell out of my 12 gauge. Otherwise I guess I'll just get murdered.
I understand your feelings very well. Though statistically, if I remember correctly what I read years ago, you are rather unlikely to get murdered or even injured in such a situation if you just stay in bed. Most people who steal things are not murderers. If they just need food, they will try to steal your food. If you point a gun at them, and they really need that food, and/or they start panicking because they feel you might shoot even if they back off, then the situation is in great danger of escalation. Last but not least, if guns are more or less banned, then
people who break into your house because their families need food are rather likely to be people who will not have a gun. If guns aren't banned, chances are that they do carry a gun simply to protect themselves (like you), given the pretty dangerous "job" that they pursue (breaking in and stealing), where chances are that house owners carry guns too. There's a pattern I guess. :-)
Again, personally I fully understand the sentiment that owning a gun is helpful for your "defense". In practice, however, it seems that free access to guns rather leads to unnecessary injuries and deaths. This has apparently been noticed in at least those countries that even have their regular uniformed police patrolling without a gun on them:
https://www.thebalance.com/in-what-countries-do-police-not-carry-guns-974879
If there weren't any firearms, there would be zero firearm-related violence.
If there weren't any ammunition, there would be zero firearm-related violence.
How close to that goal can we, as human beings, actually get? Because the firearm barn door has been wide open for a very long time. Really, isn't that the goal though? If so, why not ban all firearms everywhere. Not just private ownership, but police and military as well. All of them. Make it illegal to manufacture firearms. Someone caught 3D printing a zip gun? Life in prison - no parole. Make the penalties so harsh that it takes those folks out of the society equation.
And I don't mean just assault-style weapons. I mean every tool that has been created to shoot a projectile. Shotguns, flintlocks, bolt action rifles, .38 specials, M72 anti-tank rockets, howitzers, cannons, pellet guns, etc. And while we're at it, let's include bows and their variants, blow guns, javelins, spears, slingshots, etc. Anything that can do harm from a distance.
Of course, all ammunition needs to go as well.
Who needs any of that shit?
It came to my attention that seventeen years ago a man armed with a kitchen knife killed eight students and teachers at a school in Japan. Injured thirteen others. That's quite a while ago, and doesn't happen a lot, but why take the chance?
How would you like it if it was someone you loved that was a victim of such an attack?
Ban edged tools. All of them. Kitchen knives, cavalry swords, pocket knives, etc.
ANYTHING less is an admission that there is an acceptable level of violence.
...
We, as the society of humanity on this planet, cannot even get rid of nuclear weapons. How in the hell are we going to realistically approach the topic at hand? By slow degrees? By manipulating the populace into accepting small concessions to firearms ownership that will eventually snowball into an avalanche of complete bans?
I do agree with much what you're saying here. E.g. I do think that we (humanity) should ban all those tools that are mainly made for killing people. At the same time, you seem to insinuate that a ban of firearms should, at least at present, not be introduced, simply because it is very unlikely to stop all killing in the world. If I try to extract the basic point of your argument, it seems to suggest that we should either solve the problem completely, or otherwise not solve it at all. And here I have to disagree. I do agree that a ban of private firearms on its own will surely not completely solve the problem at hand: the fact that people are murdering other people. As several people here have mentioned already, there are surely other factors involved (incl. lack of social security and, importantly, the fact that military and police have, and use, a huge amount of extremely effective weapons). It's pretty clear that a ban of firearms should be accompanied by lots of other, and much deeper, societal changes (and personally I think demilitarisation is necessary). What I don't understand is your assumption that all those other changes would have to happen AT FIRST, before any firearm gets banned. Given the evidence that a ban of firearms does seem to (not completely solve, but) reduce murder rates significantly, there just doesn't seem to be any good reason to postpone it. Quite the contrary: every day of delay means more avoidable killings. Moreover, I think that the immediate availability of guns for killing is only one part of the problem that the mass-availability and presence of guns in society presents. The other part is what we can call the normalisation and normality of violence or, to put it stronger, the militarisation of society: If I don't have easy access to a gun, I am more likely to consider non-violent, or less violent, or at least less fatal, means of conflict management or conflict solution. E.g. I was bullied at school. Luckily I didn't have a gun (I dreamt of it though). I lived in a household where physical violence was mostly banned, so I had to look for other solutions. Their outcomes were far from satisfying, but I am still happy I didn't have a gun back then, and I had to learn other ways of managing conflict and endangerment, and I increasingly came to prefer such measures over violent ones, even in global conflicts. If guns are everywhere, and people are used to thinking: "if I feel threatened, I should use a gun to defend myself", it's much more likely that they will also agree if, for example, their government is telling them: "country X, or terrorist group Y, is threatening us, so we have to be quicker and throw a few bombs at somebody" or: "we as a nation state need to kill and torture people in order to prevent them from doing bad things" etc. . Obviously, again, banning guns would be only one of many steps required to fundamentally shift societies from violent to non-violent forms of conflict management - changing the cultural industry (movies etc.) would be another one, and how about introducing comprehensive (non-violent) anti-bullying, anti-harassment policies (including professional personell like social workers, psychologists etc.)? And the already mentioned social security: if nobody's starving, and if the humiliation of being excluded from access to common goods and care and services for masses of people is stopped, much less people will tend to break into your house or try to beat you up. And there's certainly much more that needs to be done. But again, I fail to see the point of saying "if we cannot solve the problem, or better all problems, at once and for all, then there's no use in trying to diminish them or control their amount either." Perfectionism can be helpful if it makes us do more good things; but it is counterproductive if it stops us from even starting and trying to change anything. We have to start somewhere. And while it is extremely unlikely that changing one thing will automatically change everything, it is pretty likely that changing some things will make it easier to change a few others too.
They're not arming teachers. They simply have fewer guns. And if that's not the solution, then the only other major difference I see is a comprehensive welfare state package, including support for the poor and universal health care.
Yep, that would quite certainly help to a significant extent.
-
Personally, as long as there is someone else out there who thinks they need to have a gun, I'll keep mine.
It's this way of thinking that prevents development on the issue.
But, yeah, this isn't an isolated problem, but is tied up with social inequality and structures as a whole, so there's alot that needs to be done. Your list of what also needs to be done is a very good one, but we need to start somewhere.
Good point about we're not even able to get rid of nuclear weapons, but (and i don't think this will come as a surprise to anyone) i think military in itself should be banned too, and ALL armed forces on foreign soil would become criminals. Which would make the U.S. the biggest warcriminals the last century and a half.
Erasing all borders and realize the we're one people in one world would ofcourse help matters ALOT, but yeah, i know we're not quite there yet...
But we need to start somewhere, and a full illegalization of the manufacturing and ownership of guns would be an obvious place to begin. The way i see it...
-
I understand your feelings very well. Though statistically, if I remember correctly what I read years ago, you are rather unlikely to get murdered or even injured in such a situation if you just stay in bed. Most people who steal things are not murderers. If they just need food, they will try to steal your food. If you point a gun at them, and they really need that food, and/or they start panicking because they feel you might shoot even if they back off, then the situation is in great danger of escalation. Last but not least, if guns are more or less banned, then
people who break into your house because their families need food are rather likely to be people who will not have a gun. If guns aren't banned, chances are that they do carry a gun simply to protect themselves (like you), given the pretty dangerous "job" that they pursue (breaking in and stealing), where chances are that house owners carry guns too. There's a pattern I guess. :-)
Good points. I will say that statistics goes out the window (defenestration of statistics?) when individual concerns enter the picture. To wit, it is statistically very rare that any given person or persons will be a victim of a home invasion/attack/robbery where violence is on the table. Even more statistically rare is when that violence is picked up off the table and used to kill. Yet the consequences of being one of the statistically few are so great that the thought of it is abhorrent.
At the same time, you seem to insinuate that a ban of firearms should, at least at present, not be introduced, simply because it is very unlikely to stop all killing in the world. If I try to extract the basic point of your argument, it seems to suggest that we should either solve the problem completely, or otherwise not solve it at all. And here I have to disagree.
Sort of. But that's my fault - I tend to interact online as if I'm having a discussion, and what sounds good in the telling often crumbles under analysis :) More to the point, I actually think the various measures I mentioned, along with firearms ban/control/whatever can happen in tandem.
The other part is what we can call the normalisation and normality of violence or, to put it stronger, the militarisation of society.
That's an interesting observation. An "Us versus Them" mentality is an excellent tool to help control groups of people. Continued fomenting of that way of thinking is clearly in <insert person/group/government here>'s best interest.
It's this way of thinking that prevents development on the issue.
I don't disagree :) But that does color my perspective.
Ultimately, I don't have answers or guidance for anyone, just my opinions. I think people in general are better than they give themselves credit for, I think there are some folks out there that are fundamentally bad and can't change, and specific to this topic I think that what is going on in the United States ("ban bump stocks", "ban assault weapons") is more for the people who are getting TV time than for protecting anyone.
-
Ultimately, I don't have answers or guidance for anyone, just my opinions.
And this is the place to share them, as well as hearing others...
Che Billy, huh?... :think: :) The Punk squatters i met in Barcelona called me Che, but i think that was more to do with my beard than any political views...
-
Response to Sabbabbath: Side note about firearms and self-defense... it seems that Russians are quite partial to poisoning, they even had a recent movie about the subject. They discussed some very insidious ways to accomplish the tasks of poisoning, down to selecting a certain type of Christmas tree for a poison scheme to work...
Firearms are not proof against such forms of attack. Neither do they prevent drug overdoses, traffic accidents, or heart disease. But even so, if we allow the odd gun for self-defense and allow that collectors should store firing pins and other activating mechanisms away from their collection while on display or in storage, we can reduce - if not eliminate, and it wasn't my intention to eliminate - firearm prevalence in our population.
There's also a question of how much of the USA gun culture is based upon advertising messages designed to undermine normal human logic and reasoning. Think Orwell's 1984, but with Big Brother as a collective description for corporate entities. They are watching us and they are deliberately putting messages in our path to get us to think in ways that they want us to think.
-
i think military in itself should be banned too, and ALL armed forces on foreign soil would become criminals.
Why only on foreign soil? Just everywhere!
Which would make the U.S. the biggest warcriminals the last century and a half.
That's at least implicitly relativising the crimes of Nazi Germany. As much as I dislike military in general - World War II, started by Nazi Germany as their attempt to conquer half the world and eliminate all Jews and Roma from it, claimed the lives of about 27 Million citizens of the USSR alone; and it took the united forces of the Allies, most prominantly the US and USSR (and the decisions and determination of their governments and people) to defeat it. I am eternally grateful for that. (That's of course not a withdrawal from my anti-military stance - after all, without militarism in the first place their would hardly have been a Nazi regime.)
Erasing all borders and realize the we're one people in one world would ofcourse help matters ALOT, but yeah, i know we're not quite there yet...
But we need to start somewhere, and a full illegalization of the manufacturing and ownership of guns would be an obvious place to begin. The way i see it...
Fully agreed.
-
i think military in itself should be banned too, and ALL armed forces on foreign soil would become criminals.
Why only on foreign soil? Just everywhere!
Well, o.k. then... :)
I knew WW2 and Germany would pop up as an example when i wrote that about the U.S., but balancing the 5-6 yrs WW2 went on against the fact that the U.S. have more or less been in a continuous war since then, and since WW1 up till now more often than not having interfered in conflicts that's stricktly none of their business, i know which way my scale tip, regardless of death tolls.
-
Response to Sabbabbath: Side note about firearms and self-defense... it seems that Russians are quite partial to poisoning, they even had a recent movie about the subject. They discussed some very insidious ways to accomplish the tasks of poisoning, down to selecting a certain type of Christmas tree for a poison scheme to work...
Interesting. At least in Germany, it is pretty clear that a significant portion of murders is never exposed - most deaths never get an autopsy.
There's also a question of how much of the USA gun culture is based upon advertising messages designed to undermine normal human logic and reasoning. Think Orwell's 1984, but with Big Brother as a collective description for corporate entities. They are watching us and they are deliberately putting messages in our path to get us to think in ways that they want us to think.
Good point. More obviously, there's of course lots of people and corporations who make huge profits from weapons AND from the suffering they cause.
-
I have a question. It will be at the end of my setup.
When I was growing up, the concern was "Saturday Night Specials" that crooks would buy to facilitate their crook endeavors.
Otherwise, firearms were not a concern. In high school, anyone who drove a truck generally had a gun rack, with guns in them. If you didn't drive a truck, you'd have them in your trunk or backseat. We'd sometimes go hunting before school. Nobody cared or was concerned.
Being kids, there'd sometimes be fighting. No one even thought about using a weapon, certainly not a firearm.
Today, there are grammar school kids that get expelled from school for so much as eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in such a way that it briefly resembles a pistol (until the next bite is taken).
What happened over the past 50 years in the USA?
-
^^^^^^
Tough to explain. Having never had children myself, I have paid very little attention to the changes in society in the thinking amongst teenagers and children. But you are right about how different it was years ago. I definitely did my share of fighting when I was in grammar and middle school. I never really started anything, but if anyone picked on me or tried to bully me, I would always give them a fight instead of backing down. However, we always fought with our fists. You would be considered a coward if you used any type of weapon, even just a knife. Today, using a weapon has become the norm. I don't know why.
-
Banning those guns is irrelevant.
Why?
They kill the least number of people.
The fact of the matter is that the country with the highest death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 to 2015 is NORWAY.
If that's a fact, we did have one incident that's pulling the stats. Overall there's very little gun violence at all here.
If there is very little gun violence there, then it is because there are very few people there, not guns.
-
^^^^^^
The fact of the matter is that the country with the highest death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 to 2015 is NORWAY.
This is a good example of a statement that is true but misleading.
Generally, statistics only work with high numbers. You know, if Person A rolls 2 dices 2 times in her entire life, and the results are "4" and "3 respectively", while Person B rolls 2 dices a Million times and her average result is "7", it would be statistically correct yet totally insignificant to say that that Person B's average result is twice as high as Person A's average result. Accordingly, since mass shootings are a relatively rare type of crime (especially in a country like Norway), statistics about them can be extremely misleading. That's one reason why I think that limiting a discussion of gun control to mass shootings is a very bad idea. Murders in general happen MUCH more frequently than mass shootings, so statistics about murder rates are much more likely to yield meaningful results.
This is all correct, but I must clear up a few points:
1st - I was talking about mass shootings because that's the only time there is an uproar to limit guns , even though they are responsible for the fewest gun deaths.
2nd - I know a mass shooting is extremely rare in Norway, but they are extremely rare in almost every country.
3rd - "dice" is 2 or more. It is the plural. The singular is die. So you can roll a pair of dice or roll just 1 die. (no disrespect intended, just wanted you to know)
-
If there is very little gun violence there, then it is because there are very few people there, not guns.
Typhon, I guess you missed some posts above: It has already been established that what was compared between the US and Norway wasn't absolute NUMBERS of murders but murder RATES. Yes, of course there are much less people murdered in Norway than in the US because Norway is smaller, but that's simply not what we were discussing about. Murder rates are murders per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Thus, in Norway, about 0.6 murders happen per year per 100,000 inhabitants; in the USA it is about 5 per year per 100,000 (2011 was an exception because of the Breivik mass shooting).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc
So, no: the difference in murder rates canNOT be explained by the difference in the size of the populations.
P.s.: Thanks for correcting me on the "dice" issue, it's appreciated. :D
P.p.s.: Once again I have to say I find it amazing that we can have this kind of discussion without any bullying, evangelising, bragging or patronising going on. :partay:
-
They kill the least number of people.
They still kill, though.
If there is very little gun violence there, then it is because there are very few people there, not guns.
Actually there's alot of guns relative to people here, but it's also pretty striktly controlled who get's them. That isn't to say that criminals don't get them. But for various reasons there's less crime here too, relative to the population. Keep repeating that there's few people here is a very poor argument...
-
If there is very little gun violence there, then it is because there are very few people there, not guns.
Actually there's alot of guns relative to people here, but it's also pretty striktly controlled who get's them. That isn't to say that criminals don't get them. But for various reasons there's less crime here too, relative to the population. Keep repeating that there's few people here is a very poor argument...
But you are making my point. Less guns does not mean less crime.
-
But you are making my point. Less guns does not mean less crime.
In my understanding, Bill's suggestion in the beginning of this thread was not to reduce the number of guns, but to make access to them more difficult. Countries where that is the case, like Norway, Germany and Australia, have MUCH lower murder rates than the USA.
I knew WW2 and Germany would pop up as an example when i wrote that about the U.S., but balancing the 5-6 yrs WW2 went on against the fact that the U.S. have more or less been in a continuous war since then, and since WW1 up till now more often than not having interfered in conflicts that's stricktly none of their business, i know which way my scale tip, regardless of death tolls.
I think that's a mistake. The relatively short period in which the Nazis ruled, mass-murdered and fought their wars is not at all an indicator that their war crimes are any less serious than those of the US. Quite the contrary - it shows the Nazis' huge efficiancy and effectiveness in killing: they murdered (and tortured) such an inconceivably high number of people IN SUCH A SMALL PERIOD OF TIME, plus they made it very clear they intended to go on like that. Just imagine they hadn't been defeated and would have continued to kill at a similar rate. And that's not far-fetched: e.g. had the German Reich not made some of the many mistakes it did (luckily) make regarding war strategy and decisions, it could have won the war against the USSR; thus the Germans would have been able to kill ALL Jews and Roma living in Europe and the territory of the USSR and also continue the enforcement of their "Hunger Plan" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan>, thus starving even many more Millions of Slavs to death than they already did; I don't even want to start imagining all the other horrors that the resulting world Reich of Germany would have brought to humanity.
Even without thinking through that scenario, it makes no sense at all to ignore death tolls when ranking war crimes. Demanding to not REDUCE judgement on war crimes to counting death tolls is one thing. Demanding that death tolls should be IGNORED is a very different thing. You would have to give very good reasons for such a peculiar claim.
Please note that none of this does imply that you should not talk about the USA's (or any other nation's) politics of war and its victims. What I am criticising is solely your statemant that the USA are "the biggest warcriminals the last century and a half". Not only would 99% of German Neonazis wholeheartedly agree with that claim (which is in most cases a pretty good indicator that a claim is false), but it is simply unfounded.
-
What happened over the past 50 years in the USA?
This really is a good question, and I think it's a question we have to ask.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
These do not include incidents of criminal activity in which there were 4 or more casualties, such as gang firefights, drug deals gone bad, or the like.
I sorted by date. Weapons used are predominantly handguns and semi-automatic longarms.
The first one, The Camden Shootings, was done by a person judged criminally insane. Next was the 1966 UT Tower shootings, with Charles Whitman posthumously judged criminally insane. Next three major ones are in the 1980s, then 4 of the top 20 in the 1990s, five in the 2000s, and nine in the current decade.
Those are just the major ones... https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ has data from 1982 forward, with links to CSV and other formats of the data. It is very detailed and well worth studying to see how things changed over time, if they did.
Of the 97 mass shootings recorded, 8 were in the 80s, 23 in the 90s, 20 in the 2000s, and 46(!) in the current decade. 3 involved female shooters. 52 had prior signs of mental health issues. If males with prior signs of mental health issues were not allowed to possess or access firearms, 51 of those 97 mass shootings might not have happened.
Remember - we know we can't eliminate them, but the question is how to *reduce* them. So there's one school of thought about reducing total number of guns, and another about improving mental health services. A note on that last one... I've got a friend whose son is constantly in and out of psych wards because the most his insurance will allow is a 2-week voluntary commitment. Once that young man turns 26, he's off my friend's insurance and, unless he's a ward of the state, is at risk of being a danger to himself and others. The argument for better mental health resources quickly turns to better health resources - and that quickly leads to universal health care considerations.
29 of 97 mass shootings were performed by persons who did not obtain weapons legally, where it is unknown if the weapons were legally obtained, if the legal status of the weapons used is TBD, or, in the case of the Texas First Baptist Church Massacre, the weapons were obtained after a failure of the background check process. The other 68 mass shootings were performed with legally-obtained weapons.
57 of the mass shootings were performed by whites. 16 by blacks - who make up 13% of the US population - and 7 by Hispanics - another 13% of the US population. Proportionally, though, Asians are over-represented with their 7 mass shooters.
Overwhelmingly, semiautomatic handguns were the weapons used for mass shootings. Lynyrd Skynyrd was right, it seems. Although assault rifles and semiautomatic rifles figure prominently in the most severe mass shootings, the semiautomatic handguns are used most frequently. If you are a "reduce gun availability" proponent, you will likely want to include those things in your attentions.
To be sure, the highest total casualties result from shootings involving assault and semiautomatic rifles, as those weapons are designed to maximize injuries, rather than fatalities.
Only 4 shootings involved solely shotguns and 23 shootings (including those 4) included a shotgun as one of the weapons used.
For 64 of the mass shootings, we know where the weapons were obtained. 5 of them involved weapons stolen from relatives. 3 involved weapons stolen from individuals, including one from a police officer. 2 were with issued weapons, 3 were purchased from individuals or gifts, and one was assembled from component parts. The other 50 were purchased at gun stores, gun websites, gun shows, or sporting goods stores.
16 were done in California, 10 in Florida, 8 in Texas. 4 in New York, which surprised me for a state with that large of a population.
The other 59 break out so: 6 in Washington state, 6 in Colorado, 4 in Wisconsin, 3 in Penn., 3 in Conn., 2 each in Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, South Carolina, Minnesota, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Illinois. All other states have one or zero mass shootings since 1982. 16 states have not had any, including many sparsely populated states such as Wyoming and Alaska. Densely populated states not on the list include New Jersey and Rhode Island.
-
Continuing with a quest to answer Vyn's question, I found this: http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Peak gun ownership rates were actually 1977-1980. Current gun ownership rates are down considerably since then, which means that the guns owned in the USA are concentrated in proportionally fewer households than 40 years ago. The number of adults living in a household with guns was 51% in the late 70s, and is around 32% today.
About 30% of all adults owned a gun in 1985. That number is around 22% today. Part of this decline is attributed to a decline in the popularity of hunting.
Whites are more likely to own guns, and those with higher incomes are more likely to own guns. Rural households are more likely to own guns than urban households.
By age, younger people are now much less likely to own guns than older people: it used to be more evenly distributed across ages.
-
^^^^^^
More evidence that the problem is NOT the number of guns out there. :smug:
-
^^^^^^
More evidence that the problem is NOT the number of guns out there. :smug:
I was thinking along those lines... I want to pull numbers on the number of gun stores / dealers per (x) cohort in the USA, as compared to the same rate in other nations. It may be the general availability of such weapons, given that most shootings were done with legally obtained firearms.
-
Also a question of weapon types: after a school shooting in the UK in 1996, that nation banned ownership of all semiautomatic weapons as well as pump-action shotguns. As noted above, the UK now has an incredibly low rate of death per 100K individuals due to firearms. That semiautomatic ban was followed by a ban of all handguns.
I would note also that the rate of firearm usage in criminal activity in the UK is today roughly half of what it was in 1990. And a note on criminal firearm usage in the UK: most of those are imported, and had been imported, and were typically outside the typical network of gun owners/dealers. The ban on firearms basically denied them as weapons to the hobbyist killers, as it were, as opposed to the professional ones. These bans also reduce the use of firearms in suicides, accidents, domestic disputes, and so forth. Since 1996, there was only one mass shooting in the UK, which happened in 2010.
In Japan, only two people were killed by guns in 2006. In 2007, there were 22 total gun fatalities and that kicked off a national debate on increasing the severity of their already-draconian gun laws. To be sure, Japanese culture is quite different from America, but they do have very low rates of death due to guns, very low gun ownership rates, and an intentionally frustrating process to apply for a shotgun permit that is designed to keep all but the most determined from getting a shotgun.
The Port Howard shooting in Australia resulted in PM John Howard asking two weeks later to make major changes to Australian gun ownership. To quote from the article I will cite below, "There have been no mass shootings in the 20 years since Port Arthur; in the 20 years before the massacre there had been 13."
Germany actually has a per-person ownership rate similar to the 5-to-1 I noted above for US persons that own firearms. Police there estimate, however, that in addition to about 5 million legal weapons, there are another 20 million illegal weapons. There, in 2002, a former student returned to his school with a weapon and a massacre resulted. Germany then enacted a law that required anyone under 25 to be certified by a psychiatric exam, which includes attention to anger management and personality evaluation. Persons over 25 involved in certain types of incidents, such as drunk driving, also must go through that examination to be permitted to purchase or retain firearms. In 2008, Germany added a condition that inherited guns had to have a blocking mechanism that makes them for show only.
A school shooting in 2009 by a person who obtained weapons from his parents' collection led to further restrictions. It is now harder to own multiple weapons in Germany, all legal weapons are in a national database, and police may execute unannounced spot checks on weapons stored in homes to verify that they are properly stored.
Above items from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control
-
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-do-u-s-gun-laws-compare-to-other-countries
^ Now looking there.
The USA has 5% of the world's population and an estimated 35-50% of the world's legally owned firearms.
Comparing US laws to other nations... the tl;dr of the above article...
Canada: bans on high-capacity magazines, semiautomatic weapons are "restricted" but not prohibited.
Australia: bans on semiautomatic weapons, persons desiring to purchase a weapon must demonstrate a need for the weapon. Needs can include target shooting and sport.
Israel: civilian ownership of weapons is highly restrictive. Most adults, however, get to put their hands on assault rifles when they do reservist duty, which is compulsory.
UK: semiautomatic weapons banned, nearly all handguns banned.
Norway: a mass shooting in 2011 was used by gun control opponents in the USA to point out that Norway's rather strict controls do not prevent mass shootings, but there were also those who argued that Norway's laws did not go far enough. No significant changes in the wake of the 2011 shooting.
I have not read through all the material at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation , but include the link because it may prove pertinent for the discussion here.
-
^^^^^^
More evidence that the problem is NOT the number of guns out there. :smug:
Honestly, Typh, do you have ANY interest in reducing violent crime at all? And if yes, what's your suggestion? All you have been contributing to this thread is the repeated claim that the number of guns is not the problem. You have totally ignored my post where I pointed out that the number is NOT what most people in this threat are talking about and that, instead, we are talking about measures that would restrict the ACCESS to guns. People here have already presented numerous pieces of evidence for the claim that that would indeed help to reduce the number of murders. Don't you care? I don't understand that. I thought we were having a constructive discussion here.
-
Well you don't need guns to commit murder. In fact worldwide more murders are commited by other means than guns. Saying that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would reduce murders is ludicrous to say the least.
That being said I do agree that you shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun...there should be some oversight, which a lot of states in the US do not have.
But there also are so many illegal guns out there it really doesn't matter a whole lot how much restrictions one would put on them...the only thing that would follow out of that is that law abiding citizens would not be able to get guns and bad guys would.
I've said this before GUNS are not the problem, never have been and never will be...people are the problem....and those people that are the problem they will find other ways to kill, be it a knife, an axe, a bomb, a truck or a plane...
-
Well you don't need guns to commit murder. In fact worldwide more murders are commited by other means than guns. Saying that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would reduce murders is ludicrous to say the least.
Nope it is not, given that a significant portion of murders worldwide IS commited with guns. You used the term "reduce" yourself, so you must be aware we are talking about that, rather than getting rid of murders altogether.
Sure, you can use a stone, a kitchen knife, or a herb (as poison) to kill somebody. But stones, knifes or herbs are tools needed in daily life, even in peaceful conditions, so it makes no sense to take them away from people. Guns aren't really needed, at least not by most people, under peaceful conditions. Plus, things that are potential tools, while obviously not being people, are usually (not in a literal sense of course) "telling" us something: most normal people know what a tool is for, so whenever they see it, they tend to be aware of what it can be used for. Accordingly, tools "suggest" a certain range of activities: a kitchen knife suggests to cut an apple or bread or... maybe... kill somebody. What does a gun "suggest"? I think the range of activities it suggests is pretty limited - which is why it is relatively unproblematic to restrict access to guns -, and a significant portion of the activities it suggests are dangerous and hurtful - which is why it is good to restrict access to guns.
That being said I do agree that you shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun...there should be some oversight, which a lot of states in the US do not have.
And that's exactly what has been suggested here.
But there also are so many illegal guns out there it really doesn't matter a whole lot how much restrictions one would put on them...the only thing that would follow out of that is that law abiding citizens would not be able to get guns and bad guys would.
Again, statistics show that this is not true. Even though there ARE a lot of illegal guns out there, countries who have restrictions on gun ownership do have smaller murder rates.
I've said this before GUNS are not the problem, never have been and never will be...people are the problem....and those people that are the problem they will find other ways to kill, be it a knife, an axe, a bomb, a truck or a plane...
I fully agree with your point that people are the main problem. But people (and even one and the same person) can also be very different, depending on their environment and living conditions: have they been met with empathy when they were children, does their social context promote violence or nonviolence, how are they treated by their social environment (both in terms of access to material resources and in terms of social recognition and acknowledgement), etc. Human beings have negative and positive potentials, and it depends on their (closer and wider) environment which ones they actualise. There have been murders throughout known human history. But the amount (numbers, rates) has always vastly varied depending on time, country, place, situation, social class, and a Billion other factors. The evidence shows that access to guns is one significant (though by no means the only) factor that plays a role. And we have already heard several suggestions here what other measures should be taken to reduce murder rates.
-
Nope it is not, given that a significant portion of murders worldwide IS commited with guns. You used the term "reduce" yourself, so you must be aware we are talking about that, rather than getting rid of murders altogether.
I think you missed my point, I was talking about LAW ABIDING citizens...if you commit a murder you are hardly a law abiding citizen anymore now are you? ;)
Again, statistics show that this is not true. Even though there ARE a lot of illegal guns out there, countries who have restrictions on gun ownership do have smaller murder rates.
Well there more to it than that though. It has more to do with over all crime rates than guns. Countries like The US and Brazil for example have a huge crime rate of non gun related crimes as well. Surely the outlaw attitude and existence of gangs and such also play a huuuuge role. And it is those people who would still have guns even if no one else would.
Good law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns period...that's my view as a gun owner in a country that has extremely strict gun laws.
-
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.
:D Truer words are rarely spoken.
-
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.
...Or the laws are changed.
-
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.
...Or the laws are changed.
If an evil doer is poor, he will do illegal things.
If an evil doer is rich, he will pay legislators to make it so he only does legal things.
-
If an evil doer is poor, he will do illegal things.
If an evil doer is rich, he will pay legislators to make it so he only does legal things.
If a poor man does something illegal, he's probably in need.
If a rich man does something illegal, he's evil.
-
Honestly, Typh, do you have ANY interest in reducing violent crime at all? And if yes, what's your suggestion? All you have been contributing to this thread is the repeated claim that the number of guns is not the problem. You have totally ignored my post where I pointed out that the number is NOT what most people in this threat are talking about and that, instead, we are talking about measures that would restrict the ACCESS to guns. People here have already presented numerous pieces of evidence for the claim that that would indeed help to reduce the number of murders. Don't you care? I don't understand that. I thought we were having a constructive discussion here.
Relax, lady. People can talk about different details within the same thread. Posts #1 and #2 were not talking about access, but elimination, and claiming incorrect statistics. My comments grew from there.
Charger is correct on all points (post #45). In fact, guns today are in the same situation as nuclear weapons. Sure, it would be great if no country had any. But if even 1 does, then it is better that another one does too, to make sure the first country does not use them. An awful lot of shootings take place in 'gun free' zones.
-
Honestly, Typh, do you have ANY interest in reducing violent crime at all? And if yes, what's your suggestion? All you have been contributing to this thread is the repeated claim that the number of guns is not the problem. You have totally ignored my post where I pointed out that the number is NOT what most people in this threat are talking about and that, instead, we are talking about measures that would restrict the ACCESS to guns. People here have already presented numerous pieces of evidence for the claim that that would indeed help to reduce the number of murders. Don't you care? I don't understand that. I thought we were having a constructive discussion here.
Relax, lady. People can talk about different details within the same thread. Posts #1 and #2 were not talking about access, but elimination, and claiming incorrect statistics. My comments grew from there.
Charger is correct on all points (post #45).
Right, post #1 seems to suggest removing all guns from private ownership. So I see how you can read that as "reducing the number of guns to 0". Nevertheless, I still think it is misleading that you keep talking as if the main argument in this thread was that reducing the number of guns would lead to lower murder rates. We are already on page 4 of this thread, and it has been made very clear that there is a strong statistical connection betweeen ACCESS to guns and murder rates. I have pointed out above that Charger's argument (in many murders there are no guns involved) doesn't contradict this, because we were talking about REDUCING murder rates, not eliminating them.
I think you're wrong about post #2 - there was a misunderstanding about that post, as several people thought it referred to absolute numbers, but it was clarified in subsequent posts that post #2 was NOT talking about absolute numbers, but about rates, and the statistics were correct (if I haven't missed anything - please point me to it if I did). Additional statistical numbers were brought up in subsequent posts.
Of course we can talk about different aspects of a topic. I just found it misleading that you keep talking numbers, while this thread is already (pretty much since post #2) at a totally different point)
If you agree with Charger, you also agree with this point he made?
"That being said I do agree that you shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun...there should be some oversight, which a lot of states in the US do not have."
In fact, guns today are in the same situation as nuclear weapons. Sure, it would be great if no country had any. But if even 1 does, then it is better that another one does too, to make sure the first country does not use them. An awful lot of shootings take place in 'gun free' zones.
At most, your deterrence theory works as long (for nuclear weapons) as all people and institutions who have the power to fire them are rational actors - in the sense that they would not value the elimination of their enemies higher than their own (or their country's) survival. Not only is it very doubtful that all current leaders of countries with nuclear weapons meet that condition ATM; even more importantly, how can you guarantee that the condition will always be met, worldwide, in the future? Not to mention the huge waste of natural resources, work and space given that, as long as countries adhere to the deterrence theory, it is pretty much "rational" for every country to increase armament.
For guns, I fail to see how the deterrence theory makes any sense at all. You think that someone who wants to commit a murder will not do it if the other person is armed? It seems more plausible to assume they will just try to surprise them or otherwise make sure they cannot defend yourselves. Even if you were right, it would imply that EVERYBODY (except maybe known criminals) should be armed. Is that your suggestion to reduce murder rates? Then you should immediately take action and talk to your government, because something would need to be done: currently, only a minority of adults in the US own firearms, and about half of the available firearms are owned by only 3% of US adults.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
Anyway, the deterrence theory does not seem to fit with the available evidence at all. Again, statistics show that murder rates are much LOWER in countries where access to guns is MORE RESTRICTED, not less restricted. This does NOT mean, by the way, that all criminals have weapons while all non-criminals haven't (otherwise the statistal results would look very different from what they do). Instead, typically it means that you need a license to have a fiream:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_license
E.g. in Germany you will usually NOT get the license if you have been criminally convicted within a certain period of time, and some other things are checked as well. Yes, we all know that "pro" criminals know how to get a gun anyway. A significant portion of murders, however, is NOT commited by pros. Again, we are talking reducing murder rates, not eliminating them.
As others have mentioned above, Australia had a pretty similar situation as the US for a long time, until 1996, when new restrictions on gun ownership were introduced. Since then, the rates of gun-related deaths have hugely decreased in Australia. I think that's pretty telling.
Finally, even differences within the US, between states with higher vs. states with lower rates of gun ownership make the connection very clear:
In the United States, states with higher gun ownership rates have higher rates of overall and gun homicides, but not higher rates of non-gun homicides. Higher gun availability is positively associated with homicide rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
-
Nope it is not, given that a significant portion of murders worldwide IS commited with guns. You used the term "reduce" yourself, so you must be aware we are talking about that, rather than getting rid of murders altogether.
I think you missed my point, I was talking about LAW ABIDING citizens...if you commit a murder you are hardly a law abiding citizen anymore now are you? ;)
Well, I think that Sicko's and Axefiend's comments already made the point I would like to make: since not all (though many) murderers have been criminally convicted before, I don't think it would be right to let every "law abiding citizen" have a gun without any restrictions. Anyway, mainly your point does not seem to contradict my point, while it definitely contradicts Typh's point: Guns should NOT be available for everybody in shops.
By the way, would you prefer that gun laws in Finland woud be less restrictive than they are now? Or are fine with the way they are?
Again, statistics show that this is not true. Even though there ARE a lot of illegal guns out there, countries who have restrictions on gun ownership do have smaller murder rates.
Well there more to it than that though. It has more to do with over all crime rates than guns. Countries like The US and Brazil for example have a huge crime rate of non gun related crimes as well. Surely the outlaw attitude and existence of gangs and such also play a huuuuge role. And it is those people who would still have guns even if no one else would.
Yeah, I think everyone here agree's there's more to it. That's why social security and other measures would be needed too to improve the situation in those countries. Gun laws should be part of the package though.
Good law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns period...that's my view as a gun owner in a country that has extremely strict gun laws.
Well you don't need guns to commit murder. In fact worldwide more murders are commited by other means than guns. Saying that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would reduce murders is ludicrous to say the least.
No, not at all, because the situation in the US is extremely different from e.g. Finland. In Finland,
Between 2010 and 2015, firearms were used in 15% of all homicides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland#Role_in_crimes
In the USA, however,
in 2011, 67 percent of homicide victims were killed using a firearm: 66 percent of single-victim homicides and 79 percent of multiple-victim homicides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
This huge differences between the Finnish and the US rates do support that gun laws make a big difference.
That being said I do agree that you shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun...there should be some oversight, which a lot of states in the US do not have.
That's what we're talking about.
But there also are so many illegal guns out there it really doesn't matter a whole lot how much restrictions one would put on them...the only thing that would follow out of that is that law abiding citizens would not be able to get guns and bad guys would.
Again, I thought we're talking restriction, not elimination? The only thing that would change for "law-abiding" citizens would be that their records would be checked and they would possibly have to run some tests (depending on what kind of restrictions on gun ownership would be introduced.
And why do so many people seem to assume that it would be impossible to reduce illegal gun availability as well? Yes, further measures would be needed - I just don't see why it shouldn't be tried.
-
By the way, would you prefer that gun laws in Finland woud be less restrictive than they are now? Or are fine with the way they are?
I very much wish they would be less restrictive than they are now as it is virtually impossible for me to buy a new gun now eventhough I have been a gun owner for 20 years...
EDIT:
No, not at all, because the situation in the US is extremely different from e.g. Finland. In Finland,
Between 2010 and 2015, firearms were used in 15% of all homicides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland#Role_in_crimes
In the USA, however,
in 2011, 67 percent of homicide victims were killed using a firearm: 66 percent of single-victim homicides and 79 percent of multiple-victim homicides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
Well this kind of just proves what I've been saying...85% of murders here are NOT committed by using a firearm. If a person really wants to kill another person they will find a way, a knife, an axe or bare hands...
Naturally in a country where there are a lot of firearms they are used to commit more murders as it is the easiest tool for it. But if we take out the murders committed by gangs and such (who would have guns no matter the laws or restrictions) I would probably say 85 to 90% of those premeditated murders would still get committed even if they would not have firearms at their disposal. In otherwords we'd probably be talking about a few dozen murders of over 17000 that could be prevented a year...positive sure, but not a very significant number.
People kill people, that's a fact of life...
-
In fact, guns today are in the same situation as nuclear weapons. Sure, it would be great if no country had any. But if even 1 does, then it is better that another one does too, to make sure the first country does not use them.
It's this shortsighted way of thinking that's one of the reasons there's small chances for world peace... (having borders is ofcourse the biggest one)
To make it clear, i still stand by my original post that guns are useless and should be banned and gotten rid of.
But i ofcourse understand that as long as they're here, it's better to control who gets access to them.
Once again i must remind you that i've grown up with guns and been an active gun user myself both for sports and hunting, so it's not like i'm some tree-hugging hippie who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Btw; four pages into the discussion, and still no good, wait... no argument at ALL why anyone should have access to semi-automatics...
-
Btw; four pages into the discussion, and still no good, wait... no argument at ALL why anyone should have access to semi-automatics...
Your stance is that no one should have any type of firearm, so arguing for a subset of firearms seems moot, actually. But if you would like, let me know what you mean when you use the term "semi-automatic".
-
Btw; four pages into the discussion, and still no good, wait... no argument at ALL why anyone should have access to semi-automatics...
Your stance is that no one should have any type of firearm, so arguing for a subset of firearms seems moot, actually. But if you would like, let me know what you mean when you use the term "semi-automatic".
Basically what the term means, not having to reload, but pull the trigger for each bullet (as opposed to fully automatic where you can just hold the trigger and blast away).
Though i have that stance, i would still like to hear some arguments about it given the current happenings and discussions in your corner of the world. If anyone here actually is pro semi-automatics, ofcourse.
While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...
-
Basically what the term means, not having to reload, but pull the trigger for each bullet (as opposed to fully automatic where you can just hold the trigger and blast away).
Though i have that stance, i would still like to hear some arguments about it given the current happenings and discussions in your corner of the world. If anyone here actually is pro semi-automatics, ofcourse.
While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...
Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I can't give you any kind of defense of the semi-automatic rifle, because I can't see one. I don't own a so-called "assault rifle", the AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle that is the current object of evil in the USA. There is no use for them other than killing people. More to the point of their nature than the semi-automatic manner in which their firing mechanism works is the ammunition they are capable of firing.
Either .223, 5.56, or 7.62. I've heard some people talk about .308 as well, but in my experience that would be more of a carbine.
But labels and categorizations aside, the assault rifle is made for killing people and is designed to facilitate that goal. It has no other purpose. It is piss-poor as a home defense weapon, an is owned by people simply because they can.
-
^^^ Atleast we're eye to eye on that specific detail, then :)
-
While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...
Well I own a Glock pistol which (ofcourse like all pistols and most revolvers) is semi-automatic. It's fun to shoot. All guns are fun to shoot...that's why I have them...and in case of a zombie-apocalypse....I would also like to say I own a gun for self protection but ofcourse that is not the case here in Finland where there is no concept of self defence or defence of others. Here you just have to sit by and let someone rob your home, rape your mother and kill your father because if you do anything to stop that you are the one going to jail for 15 years and have to pay the perp damages for the rest of your life who in turn will just get a slap on the wrist...that's the kind of place I live in.
-
A bit of a drama queen now, are we? Is shooting people the only way of self defence? I suspect your main reason for having a gun is:
It's fun to shoot.
I thought so too once.
Also, without having read the Finnish laws, i find it hard to believe that you'll end up in jail for 15 yrs for stopping a person from raping your mother. After all, self defence doesn't equal murder...
-
A bit of a drama queen now, are we? Is shooting people the only way of self defence? I suspect your main reason for having a gun is:
It's fun to shoot.
Yes quite right you are on that. But if a perp comes into your home with a gun how would you self defend yourself then? Throwing half smoked joints at him? :D
Also, without having read the Finnish laws, i find it hard to believe that you'll end up in jail for 15 yrs for stopping a person from raping your mother. After all, self defence doesn't equal murder...
Well I was referring to if you kill the guy...naturally if you just wound him the jail time will be shorter...something from 18 months to 5 years depending where you hit and how much damage you do.
-
While i see no need for guns at all, i see less needs for semi-automatics for "legal" use of guns, like hunting and sports. And self defence, to humour those of you who believe guns are usable for that...
Well I own a Glock pistol which (ofcourse like all pistols and most revolvers) is semi-automatic. It's fun to shoot. All guns are fun to shoot...that's why I have them...and in case of a zombie-apocalypse....I would also like to say I own a gun for self protection but ofcourse that is not the case here in Finland where there is no concept of self defence or defence of others. Here you just have to sit by and let someone rob your home, rape your mother and kill your father because if you do anything to stop that you are the one going to jail for 15 years and have to pay the perp damages for the rest of your life who in turn will just get a slap on the wrist...that's the kind of place I live in.
Very sad to hear that is the situation in Finland. When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound. That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.
-
Very sad to hear that is the situation in Finland. When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound. That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.
Now that's the way it should be! But not here...here if you even hit an intruder and prevent him from leaving you will get charged for battery and unlawful imprisonment...it's horrible.
-
Yes quite right you are on that. But if a perp comes into your home with a gun how would you self defend yourself then? Throwing half smoked joints at him? :D
The one time a junkie broke through my window and came at me with a knife trying to threaten me to give him the 16000 NOK and three hectos of stash he knew i had, i smashed a glass bottle which was what happened to be the thing closest by right then over his head. Then i smoked a joint myself.
I would probably have tried doing the same if he had a gun too. A person in that situation wants valuables, he's not looking to kill someone. But it's hard to say as i haven't experienced it, and ofcourse i didn't think at all when this happened, i just acted.
Well I was referring to if you kill the guy...naturally if you just wound him the jail time will be shorter...something from 18 months to 5 years depending where you hit and how much damage you do.
I have to say i find it hard to believe that the victim is the one who gets penalized, but if that's a fact then it's your laws you gotta do something about, no amount of guns will help either way...
-
When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound. That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.
:doh: :doh: :doh:
You U.S.Aians are truly sick minded people... So are many cops (which is why they become cops). Combining the two... :twitch: :-\
With that logic you could kill anyone entering your house and just say "he tried breaking in O:-)"... :wall:
-
It is piss-poor as a home defense weapon, an is owned by people simply because they can.
Why do you think this? ???
-
It is piss-poor as a home defense weapon, an is owned by people simply because they can.
Why do you think this? ???
In a stressful situation being in a hurry it would be better with a small, easy to handle hand gun than a big, clumsy rifle. Isn't that self explanatory?
-
For me, gun control is not an issue of resolving the murder problem or the senseless killing problem. Humanity's been burdened with that for ages.
It's about reducing the number of casualties resultant from the murder and the senseless killing problems.
Looking at the murder rate as a whole, not just for firearms, the USA leads all the other Western/Industrial/Places where the law is respected sort of nations (PWTLIRSON). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
USA is 4.88. North Korea is, surprisingly, not far behind... one would think a police state would have a lower murder rate, but there you are... DPRK is 4.41.
Of the PWRLIRSONs, Canada shows up next, with Finland a close third: 1.68 and 1.60. France is 1.58 and the rest tail off.
So, even if the folks that are going to murder or engage in senseless killing will just do it, anyway, then places where there are fewer total guns in the populace (and extremely low rates of automatic/semi-automatic weapons) have lower rates of murder/senseless killing because the murderers and senseless killers have to use less-efficient means to accomplish their ends.
Same reason casualties due to battle spiked upward after the introduction of muskets, spiked again after the introduction of rifled muskets, another spike with the debut of machine guns... more efficient means of killing translates into higher casualty rates. If I were to use a high-power, large-magazine, semi-automatic weapon for home defense, I might take down an intruder, but I might also inflict collateral damage on other homes that are downrange from my firing activity. If I use a shotgun, its short range means less danger for my neighbors.
If it's a matter of home defense, weapons required for that function can be limited to what is effective without unnecessarily endangering others.
And, to respond to the argument that if a certain class of weapons is banned, then only criminals will have that class of weapons, I would say, "Yes, that's right. Other nations have made that choice and they have not plunged into violent, anarchic despotism. Quite the opposite, really."
-
Here you just have to sit by and let someone rob your home, rape your mother and kill your father because if you do anything to stop that you are the one going to jail for 15 years and have to pay the perp damages for the rest of your life who in turn will just get a slap on the wrist...that's the kind of place I live in.
Well, I don't know about Finland, but in Germany most women who are raped are NOT raped by unknown people, but by their partner, a friend or a relative. Total strangers are a small minority among perpetrators of rape. Thus, statistically, having men with weapons living in their house is NOT exactly a protective factor for women against being raped (though of course there are individual cases where it is).
If I was as worried as some people in this thread about the possibility of strangers breaking into my house, I would definitely want to live in a country where it is extremely difficult to have a gun. Otherwise there would be a much higher chance that the person who breaks in has a gun themselves. I would prefer a situation where nobody has a gun over a situation where I have a gun and the intruder has a gun, especially given that the vast majority of intruders are not murderers or rapists.
-
When I got my LTC years ago, the police instructor who taught the class we were required to attend, specifically said that if you stop an intruder, make sure to kill and not just wound. That way there is no conflicting stories after the fact because the intruder is dead.
Well, that's just crazy and horrible. Anyway, given how many people (disproportionally blacks) have been arbitrarily killed by US police officers, and given how many of the perpetrators were never punished, I am not surprised.
You U.S.Aians are truly sick minded people... So are many cops (which is why they become cops). Combining the two... :twitch: :-\
I disagree with the first statement: I know a lot of US citizens who are very unhappy about that kind of policy themselves.
With that logic you could kill anyone entering your house and just say "he tried breaking in O:-)"... :wall:
Yes, exactly.
-
So, even if the folks that are going to murder or engage in senseless killing will just do it, anyway, then places where there are fewer total guns in the populace (and extremely low rates of automatic/semi-automatic weapons) have lower rates of murder/senseless killing because the murderers and senseless killers have to use less-efficient means to accomplish their ends.
Same reason casualties due to battle spiked upward after the introduction of muskets, spiked again after the introduction of rifled muskets, another spike with the debut of machine guns... more efficient means of killing translates into higher casualty rates.
Noooo, really..? :P
If I was as worried as some people in this thread about the possibility of strangers breaking into my house, I would definitely want to live in a country where it is extremely difficult to have a gun. Otherwise there would be a much higher chance that the person who breaks in has a gun themselves. I would prefer a situation where nobody has a gun over a situation where I have a gun and the intruder has a gun, especially given that the vast majority of intruders are not murderers or rapists.
:yes:
You U.S.Aians are truly sick minded people... So are many cops (which is why they become cops). Combining the two... :twitch: :-\
I disagree with the first statement: I know a lot of US citizens who are very unhappy about that kind of policy themselves.
Yes, ofcourse. Was just overly generalizing, as you know i like to do when it comes to U.S.Aians. :) Hard to think of another country where a cop would give you such a horrible advise, though...
-
I have to say i find it hard to believe that the victim is the one who gets penalized, but if that's a fact then it's your laws you gotta do something about, no amount of guns will help either way...
Well that is the case here.
One of the most blatant cases of this was few years ago when a woman was being raped and a two good samarithans came to her aid and a kicked the guy from top of her cracking the sick fucks ribs and were then charged with assault and had to pay damages to the rapist. That is the way things are here. Which is why people really don't go to anyone's aid anymore...because the risks are just too great....it is truly sad.
As far as this whole gun thing goes I've said my peace and I am done with it now...
-
I have to say i find it hard to believe that the victim is the one who gets penalized, but if that's a fact then it's your laws you gotta do something about, no amount of guns will help either way...
Well that is the case here.
One of the most blatant cases of this was few years ago when a woman was being raped and a two good samarithans came to her aid and a kicked the guy from top of her cracking the sick fucks ribs and were then charged with assault and had to pay damages to the rapist. That is the way things are here. Which is why people really don't go to anyone's aid anymore...because the risks are just too great....it is truly sad.
Yup, it really is. But i hope you understand that the fault is in how the laws are composed and have nothing to do with the question of guns or no guns.
-
I have to say i find it hard to believe that the victim is the one who gets penalized, but if that's a fact then it's your laws you gotta do something about, no amount of guns will help either way...
Well that is the case here.
One of the most blatant cases of this was few years ago when a woman was being raped and a two good samarithans came to her aid and a kicked the guy from top of her cracking the sick fucks ribs and were then charged with assault and had to pay damages to the rapist. That is the way things are here. Which is why people really don't go to anyone's aid anymore...because the risks are just too great....it is truly sad.
That's indeed horrible. I wasn't aware that any "Western" country had no concept of self-defence in law. I agree with Billy that's a change that is urgently needed in your country to protect victims and potential victims of violent crime, much more than any change in gun laws.
EDIT: The Finnish criminal code does recognize self-defence, so maybe the problem is with jurisdiction rather than legislation?
https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf
-
That's indeed horrible. I wasn't aware that any "Western" country had no concept of self-defence in law. I agree with Billy that's a change that is urgently needed in your country to protect victims and potential victims of violent crime, much more than any change in gun laws.
EDIT: The Finnish criminal code does recognize self-defence, so maybe the problem is with jurisdiction rather than legislation?
https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf
The problem is even if you act in self defence you are still liable for criminal prosecution and even financial damages to the assailant which has then become the victim...it is all so fuckin' twisted here!
Yup, it really is. But i hope you understand that the fault is in how the laws are composed and have nothing to do with the question of guns or no guns.
Oh yes has nothing to do with guns, never meant to say that it did.
-
The law here is clear. If I feel my life is in danger, I have the right to shoot and kill. The intruder is in the wrong from the start and his intent is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with that.
-
The law here is clear. If I feel my life is in danger, I have the right to shoot and kill. The intruder is in the wrong from the start and his intent is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with that.
I still consider you a friend, but i'm glad there's a very slim chance that i'll physically pop by to say hello... :)
-
The law here is clear. If I feel my life is in danger, I have the right to shoot and kill. The intruder is in the wrong from the start and his intent is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with that.
I still consider you a friend, but i'm glad there's a very slim chance that i'll physically pop by to say hello... :)
You do know there are such things nowadays called phones? You can call before hand and avoid being shot! :D
-
The law here is clear. If I feel my life is in danger, I have the right to shoot and kill. The intruder is in the wrong from the start and his intent is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes, there is something seriously wrong with that: it means that people will be unnecessarily killed - unnecessarily especially given that most intruders aren't killers or rapists -, and it means that in practice, the punishment for breaking in can be death. Which falls even back behind the Old Testament with its "eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth". It also ignores the fact that there are people living in poverty on the streets who may sometimes, if they don't want to die by freezing, have no choice than to enter somebody else's home. Which of course brings us back to the issues of social security and social (in)equality.
Anyway, I guess I have said my peace here too.
-
For your information, Billy, I have only shot 3 friends in the last 10 years. ;D
-
You do know there are such things nowadays called phones? You can call before hand and avoid being shot! :D
Yeah, but i still happen to pop by for surprise visits ev'ry now and then. Doesn't always ring the doorbell/knock on the door either. Might be due to the set of friends i've got too, ofcourse... :P
For your information, Billy, I have only shot 3 friends in the last 10 years. ;D
That's reassuring... :P
-
An old friend of mine who slept with a gun under her pillow fatally shot her cousin (who was staying at her apartment with her) in the face when her cousin entered her room at night, maybe to get a blanket or something?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
An old friend of mine who slept with a gun under her pillow fatally shot her cousin (who was staying at her apartment with her) in the face when her cousin entered her room at night, maybe to get a blanket or something?
Stories like this and the countless stories of kids finding a gun, playing around with it and accidentally shooting themselves or friends are also reasons for my point of view that guns should get rid of. It's nothing but sad...
-
An old friend of mine who slept with a gun under her pillow fatally shot her cousin (who was staying at her apartment with her) in the face when her cousin entered her room at night, maybe to get a blanket or something?
OMG.
-
Everyone makes the joke over here 'everyting in Australia can kill you' ...You know what probably won't kill you in Australia?
An Assualt rifle
-
This continued idea that because other people make mistakes, or are less skilled, or are not very bright, when it comes to doing anything, is something I have had to put up with my entire life. Examples:
a) I'm not allowed to drive more than 65mph on the highway, even though I have been doing it for over 40 years without incident, because many others can not do it safely (yes, I have my share of speeding tickets).
b) Each year, to celebrate Independence Day, I'm forced to travel to another state to buy fireworks because Massachusetts has outlawed them for safety reasons. Yet, I have been handling them for over 40 years without incident.
With each new restriction, a little more freedom and enjoyment of life is taken away. Sabbabbath asked me earlier what then would be my solution for saving lives? Well, in a perfect world, there would be some testing for each of these activities. Determining who can and cannot participate. Of course, it would be darn near impossible to develop accurate and fair tests for each activity. Therefore, I must conclude, there is no solution for saving lives without continuing to infringe on others' freedoms. I choose the avenue of greater enjoyment with greater risk.
-
An old friend of mine who slept with a gun under her pillow fatally shot her cousin (who was staying at her apartment with her) in the face when her cousin entered her room at night, maybe to get a blanket or something?
OMG.
http://www.dispatch.com/article/20070816/news/308169752
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
http://www.dispatch.com/article/20070816/news/308169752
So, so terrible.
-
First of all let me say I'm sad to see Sabbabbath leave this forum. She was a woman of strong beliefs. I did not always agree with her but she always made thought provoking posts. I will miss her.
Now, here in the US has everyone forgotten this:
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now the Founding Fathers knew nothing about automatic or Semi-automatic weapons with bump stops. If they had I think they would have worded The Second Amendment differently. But that leaves the door open to todays politicians to ban these types of weapons and make acquiring a gun more difficult. For one no more "gun shows" that skirt the law.
For example, the vetting process should take into account many more stipulations to allow you to own a gun. If you fail any of the following you should be rejected: You fail a psych eval, you have a criminal record, you are an undocumented immigrant or you are on the "No Fly" list.
One positive thing that has happened recently is that several of the major sporting goods stores have stopped selling semi-automatics. Definitely a step in the right direction.
Some of you have unrealistic dreams about eliminating guns altogether. But I think just implementing the above ideas would make a huge difference. Sure crooks will always find a way to get guns but I think that is true anywhere. And if someone threatens you in your own home you have every right to defend yourself.
I personally do not own a gun but my brother and his wife do, my brother has a LTC. One evening my sister-in-law was driving home and a huge pick-up was right on her ass with every headlight on. She makes a frantic call to my brother and he runs out packing. My sister-in-law enters her driveway and this yahoo follows right behind her. So my brother walks up to the truck to find out what the fuck is going on. He gave some lame excuse about her cutting him off, so my brother just told him to screw.
Now this is a responsible gun owner. His gun never left its holster but should it have become necessary he had the option to protect his family.
Then Trump makes the statement that teachers should carry guns which is totally ridiculous. My daughter teaches 3rd graders and said there's no way she would ever carry a gun. She will be a part of the March on Washington DC this Saturday along with many other teachers in her school.
Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it ...
-
^^^ You've got levelheaded opinions, Bog. As you'd probably guess i don't exactly agree with all of them, but if more was like you, the problem would without a doubt be alot smaller.
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
This is the thing, though. Any other law that old still being applicable without any changes would simply be laughable, whatever country it would be. It's like those laws that can judge a cow to be hung for kicking a person. I don't think anyone here really disagree with that.
But since this one has to do with our "toys", nooonooo, can't change that one...
-
Given how many times a teacher's cell phone has been stolen, I do not have high hopes for encouraging teachers to carry weapons into schools or classrooms.
Given how many times I've heard a teacher snap and start screaming at his or her students (usually a few days before they decide to quit), I have vivid fears about teachers with weapons in classrooms.
The idea simply increases a chance that a weapon will be involved in school incidents. Saying that the teachers would be properly trained will not ease my fears. I know teachers that would be very precise and careful and conscientious in their carrying, and I know teachers that will nod their way through the training and forget most of the precautions a few months or weeks afterwards.
-
^^^ You've got levelheaded opinions, Bog. As you'd probably guess i don't exactly agree with all of them, but if more was like you, the problem would without a doubt be alot smaller.
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
This is the thing, though. Any other law that old still being applicable without any changes would simply be laughable, whatever country it would be. It's like those laws that can judge a cow to be hung for kicking a person. I don't think anyone here really disagree with that.
But since this one has to do with our "toys", nooonooo, can't change that one...
Thank you for your comments Billy. I wouldn't expect ANYONE to agree with everything I said, But most of these restrictions have already bounced around Congress a few times with no results. I think some of the States, including Florida have started to take matters into their own hands.
The NRA ( National Rifle Association) is a big supporter of the Republican party who currently have control in the House and Senate. So changing gun laws hurts them in their wallets which means things will be slow to change in this area.
I don't identify with any party, on the fence as it were. But some things are just common sense regardless of party affiliation. Mid-term elections are coming up in November so maybe there will be a shift in power in the House and Senate and we might see some change. Not holding my breath though.
-
For example, the vetting process should take into account many more stipulations to allow you to own a gun. If you fail any of the following you should be rejected: You fail a psych eval, you have a criminal record, you are an undocumented immigrant or you are on the "No Fly" list.
Most of what you're wishing for here already exists:
1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to have a gun. That's the law.
2. If your criminal record contains a felony, you are not allowed to have a gun. That's the law.
3. The "no fly" list is a tricky one. A lot of the people on it have never committed a crime, and you can't punish someone because they might do something bad. That is also the law.
Interesting post, buddy.
-
^^^^^ Do you think that a psych eval would help the problem?
-
^^^^^ Do you think that a psych eval would help the problem?
Yes, although I believe implementing that would be extremely difficult. Civil rights people would probably start complaining that it is unconstitutional to require someone to take such a test without just cause. Would you require every person in the country who has a gun license to be tested? Even if they have had the license for years without a problem? Then, it would only take 1 time for someone who has passed the test to turn around and commit a mass shooting, upon which everyone would claim the test is bogus. It's a tough problem.
-
Can't argue with any of that Typhon.
-
^^^^^ Do you think that a psych eval would help the problem?
Yes, although I believe implementing that would be extremely difficult. Civil rights people would probably start complaining that it is unconstitutional to require someone to take such a test without just cause. Would you require every person in the country who has a gun license to be tested? Even if they have had the license for years without a problem? Then, it would only take 1 time for someone who has passed the test to turn around and commit a mass shooting, upon which everyone would claim the test is bogus. It's a tough problem.
Another potential line of litigation would be if someone contended that the questions used in a gun psych eval were biased against a particular minority group. Not wanting to start a discussion of the right/wrong of that, especially for a test that doesn't even exist... just that a test could be spun as controversial from different sides of the aisle. I'd agree with Typhon that it's probably a non-starter.
More likely in my view will be state laws going forward with changes, much as what we saw with gay marriage and are seeing with marijuana legalization.
-
Tru dat
-
Interesting development... looks like the rule that kept the CDC from analyzing gun violence has been knocked down...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/dickey-amendment-gun-research-terrified-the-nra-explains-how-congress-finally-got-it-right/
-
Our future leader. Yikes!
(https://s20.postimg.org/46t7dyxkt/leader.jpg)
-
Slightly related and sad news:
Legendary Gun manufacturer REMINGTON has filed for Bankruptcy...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/26/us-gunmaker-remington-files-for-bankruptcy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/26/us-gunmaker-remington-files-for-bankruptcy)
As an owner of the iconic Remington 870 shotgun this makes me sad but it shows that gun manifacturers aren't untouchable by hard times.
-
Slightly related and sad news:
Legendary Gun manufacturer REMINGTON has filed for Bankruptcy...
:boohoo:
-
I believe they are trying to "restructure" in bankruptcy court.
-
Wondering if the Remington thing is like the Gibson and Fender issues, where a rising generation isn't as impressed with an existing brand name, putting their purchases towards other makes...
-
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
―Thomas Jefferson
-
Wondering if the Remington thing is like the Gibson and Fender issues, where a rising generation isn't as impressed with an existing brand name, putting their purchases towards other makes...
Remington built a name for themselves based on the quality of their products and customer service post-sale. The past decade or so has seen that go downhill.
And it isn't so much that Remington's competitors upped their game (although many certainly have), it's that Remington lowered theirs.
-
Wondering if the Remington thing is like the Gibson and Fender issues, where a rising generation isn't as impressed with an existing brand name, putting their purchases towards other makes...
Remington built a name for themselves based on the quality of their products and customer service post-sale. The past decade or so has seen that go downhill.
And it isn't so much that Remington's competitors upped their game (although many certainly have), it's that Remington lowered theirs.
So, yes, it is kind of a Gibson Guitars story...
-
Wondering if the Remington thing is like the Gibson and Fender issues, where a rising generation isn't as impressed with an existing brand name, putting their purchases towards other makes...
Remington built a name for themselves based on the quality of their products and customer service post-sale. The past decade or so has seen that go downhill.
And it isn't so much that Remington's competitors upped their game (although many certainly have), it's that Remington lowered theirs.
So, yes, it is kind of a Gibson Guitars story...
This is quite sad to learn...but I suppose this actually happens to a lot of big name companies...they get complacent and think people will always keep buying their products no matter what so they can start cutting corners on development and manufacturing...
There are several stories like this around...
-
You do know there are such things nowadays called phones? You can call before hand and avoid being shot! :D
Yeah, but i still happen to pop by for surprise visits ev'ry now and then. Doesn't always ring the doorbell/knock on the door either. Might be due to the set of friends i've got too, ofcourse... :P
Surprise visits are fine. Intruders sneak in through windows or break in through locked doors. So you have nothing to worry about if you visit me. 8)
-
I would think that this recent terrible school shooting in the southwest section of the U.S. should make it clearer that more restrictive gun laws would not have helped. An assault weapon was not used. The guns used were legally purchased by the shooter's father. Banning assault weapons or lowering the age limit for purchase, would not have stopped this. Where the heck is Sabbabath? She should be hearing this.
-
It's not just assault weapons. It's semiautomatic pistols that do most of the carnage. We need controls there.
This shooting happened while I was up in Canada on business. I realized then how much their hearts break for us Americans when another thing like this happens. We've got way too much dependency on weapons, like they were part of our national religion or something.
-
Apparently the kid also planted explosive devices in and around the school. What are we in the USA doing so that people can't just go purchase C4 and blasting caps? Shouldn't there be some kind of ID check involved? Age restriction for grenade-fuse purchases?
Oh, wait.
-
It's not just assault weapons. It's semiautomatic pistols that do most of the carnage. We need controls there.
After the Florida incident, the high schoolers were screaming for a ban on assault weapons. That is what I was referring to.
-
I would respond that obviously, there's more to do than just assault weapons, but there's so much to accomplish, one starting place is as good as any.
The right to bear arms seriously has NOT delivered on its promise. It is not giving us a proper militia, let alone a well-ordered one. It was a philosophy of the 18th century that everybody thought would be a good idea to include, but it hasn't panned out as hoped for.
It certainly hasn't made a citizenry that the government is afraid of, nor has it prevented a grasping, centralized government from coming into existence.
My freedom of speech, religion, and to gather publicly, I use at least one of those every day. That first amendment was amazing, thanks very much for it.
The third amendment, honestly, I don't use it all that much. Probably because it exists, I don't wind up in a situation where I'd have to invoke it.
Amendments 4-8 are great to have. I haven't had to call on them in my life, thank goodness, but they're good to have, along with the right of habeas corpus defined in the Constitution proper.
Amendment nine is good, it keeps things loose.
Amendment ten is a tricky one... states want it enforced if it gives them a benefit and want it ignored if it gives another state a benefit at their expense. Shows that the founding fathers weren't all 100% in their judgment calls.
Which brings me to that second amendment... the original draft of it was this:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Clearly, the intent was about forming a state militia that would itself be independent of a federal standing army. It also speaks to conscientious objection to military duty. It's about a citizen army of the republic, which authors from Machiavelli forward praised as integral to the security of freedoms. Kings would hire mercenaries who would in turn oppress the people. Citizens of a republic would be less likely to turn their weapons on their fellow citizens.
But today, that second amendment has led to a cult of firearms in the USA. And I do mean a cult, in the very pejorative sense of the word. It's an ideology as bankrupt as fascism and communism - each of those discredited by the same two key arguments. One, none of those have delivered a promised better world. Two, there is a pile of bodies as a result of increasingly desperate measures to get the ideas to work.
Those societies that have abandoned those ideas live peacefully and live well. They enjoy the rule of law, safety on their streets, and general bonhomie. Yes, they have problems in government and crime and terrible tragedies, but their problems in government are no worse than the ones in the USA, their crime rates tend to be much lower, and their terrible tragedies have a lower annual body count, when all summed up - and also much less ammunition expenditure per casualty, if any.
And I tire of how the gun believers will dismiss statistics showing how other nations that have fewer guns per person also have lower murder rates and lower massacres per annum, and then after dismissing statistics will seize upon a single, outlying incident as some sort of proof that they are right. I suppose they would be right if that single, outlying incident were all the proof we had, but it ain't that way. A rational mind takes in all the data, the bad and the good, and will change one's mind when the data clearly show that a previously-held belief was just that, a belief. Not a fact. Not a truth. A whimsical belief.
I find no rational reason to believe that more guns than people in the USA makes this nation a safer, better place. I find many rational reasons to believe quite the opposite, that the amount of guns in the USA makes this nation more dangerous and worse than it has to be.
I find that pro-gun propaganda makes as much sense in the light of truth as Nazism or Communism: none. I believe that, as people in the USA grow less tolerant of their children being killed in schools, they will begin voting hard against anyone supporting a pro-gun agenda. It may take a generation, but it is a tide of history.
The gun believers can shut their eyes and ears and pretend that shouting out the words of the second amendment as a mantra will save them, but that is a sure path to continue alienating the majority of people in the USA who are *not* gun owners. Look what happened in the case of same-sex marriages and is happening now in the case of marijuana legalization. Guns are next. The rising generation in the USA is not at all happy with the NRA and its fellow-travelers and will sweep it aside as it ages out.
I think now is the time for the gun lobby and its supporters to realize that, in order to not be on the wrong side of history, it will have to make concessions. It will have to give up assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons, in some form or fashion. Arguing about caliber size or rate of fire will just anger further gun opponents and will be likely to result in overreaching legislation. Going down a road that the Israelis, Germans, and Swiss have taken may be the one most palatable to gun opponents.
And please, don't be the ones to say, "Guns don't kill, people do!" Or, if you do, don't be the one to say, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight." That second line kinda proves the point the gun opponents make: that even if we can't stop people from killing, we can at least reduce the casualty rate by reducing the rate of fire.
In the case of vehicular safety, drug safety, and a whole host of other safety measures, we've been able to use data to show how to reduce the lethality of various human activities. We keep making laws to make things safer, and rightly so. Witness the laws against texting and driving. We know that we reduce the number of traffic accidents and fatalities when we ban texting and driving. We can't eliminate that activity, but that banning it does reduce the incidence of the hazard.
But in the case of guns, the gun believers seem to be blind to the data. It's as if they were smokers, protesting that smoking doesn't lead to cancers and heart disease, or drunk drivers insisting that the real solution is to have pedestrians keep to the sewers and sober drivers at home.
I would dare say that the cult of gun ownership has been the very thing that has prevented the second amendment from delivering on its promise. We wouldn't have such a gun problem in the USA if we didn't have people that had been taken in so deeply by the gun industry's advertising that they would make a religion out of weapon ownership.
It's clear, though. The gun lobby needs to start making concessions or wind up losing everything.
-
A rational mind takes in all the data, the bad and the good, and will change one's mind when the data clearly show that a previously-held belief was just that, a belief. Not a fact. Not a truth. A whimsical belief.
It is a shame you don't apply this logical thinking when evaluating your "belief" in some kind of god.
-
A rational mind takes in all the data, the bad and the good, and will change one's mind when the data clearly show that a previously-held belief was just that, a belief. Not a fact. Not a truth. A whimsical belief.
It is a shame you don't apply this logical thinking when evaluating your "belief" in some kind of god.
How can you be so sure he doesn't? It was logical thinking that finally convinced me about the existence of god, and in that process i also understood that all my life i've been misinformed and miseducated about what the concept of "god" actually is.
-
A rational mind takes in all the data, the bad and the good, and will change one's mind when the data clearly show that a previously-held belief was just that, a belief. Not a fact. Not a truth. A whimsical belief.
It is a shame you don't apply this logical thinking when evaluating your "belief" in some kind of god.
How can you be so sure he doesn't? It was logical thinking that finally convinced me about the existence of god, and in that process i also understood that all my life i've been misinformed and miseducated about what the concept of "god" actually is.
It is not possible for 2 people to apply the same logical thinking, given the same data, then wind up with opposite conclusions.
-
A rational mind takes in all the data, the bad and the good, and will change one's mind when the data clearly show that a previously-held belief was just that, a belief. Not a fact. Not a truth. A whimsical belief.
It is a shame you don't apply this logical thinking when evaluating your "belief" in some kind of god.
How can you be so sure he doesn't? It was logical thinking that finally convinced me about the existence of god, and in that process i also understood that all my life i've been misinformed and miseducated about what the concept of "god" actually is.
It is not possible for 2 people to apply the same logical thinking, given the same data, then wind up with opposite conclusions.
But what if we don't have the same data? Maybe you've been miseducated about the concept of god too, like i was. Then there's no wonder it's hard to grasp how someone can believe in something devine.
-
^^^^^^
It seems you can't talk about this without using the "f" word. :naughty:
-
Yes, i can... :)
-
Whether or not I'm perceived to be consistent in my rationality is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. Suffice to say I've had my spiritual experiences and am satisfied that my beliefs regarding a higher power are accurate and currently not in need of any modification or adjustment.
As for gun culture in the USA, I do think it's either at or past the high water mark.
-
Which brings me to that second amendment... the original draft of it was this:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
I was going to explain your misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but, I will let Penn & Teller do it for me:
-
I appreciate and am thankful that I live in a country that allows me the option to possess lethal weapons.
I also think that conflating the so-called "gun culture" with the right to bear arms is either disingenuous or poorly thought out. Not everyone who owns a firearm is a gun nut.
For those that feel that private ownership of firearms isn't a consideration for those in our government who might be a little on the "power hungry" side of things, think again. It isn't the only thing keeping the wolves at bay, but consider what the very first thing a ruling group does before they go ape-shit tyrannical on its populace. And if you think that "first thing" is providing everyone with a nice steak meal, you're not thinking right.
-
Well, the *real* first thing that the tyrants do is put a massive emphasis on patriotism and questioning if their opponents truly love their country.
As for the conflation, that's pretty much how it's seen. If a gun owner that's not a gun nut says the same things about gun control that a gun nut says, it's hard to separate the two positions. And if neither non-nuts and nuts both refuse to make concessions, there's another difficulty in separating the two and a higher chance that gun control advocates won't listen to either group when they make legislation.
If non-nuts want to be taken seriously, and I truly believe that they should, they need to be able to say things like "I want to preserve my right to own weaponry, but at the same time I accept that we can't keep insisting that all gun ownership be considered sacrosanct."
I think a shotgun is a very good choice for home defense. Fire it and there's little chance you have to explain things to your neighbors downrange.
An AR-15, though? Six of the ten largest mass shootings in the USA by casualties were done thanks to the AR-15. Adam Lanza used one in Sandy Hook *and* was an NRA member. Two points to be made here: 1. Being a member of a group that claims to be made up of responsible gun owners does not in fact make one a responsible gun owner. 2. There's no need to have an AR-15 or anything like it. Make these illegal, and the casualty rates will decline, simple as that.
After the AR-15, there are other weapons to consider, and if gun owners that aren't gun nuts can speak up about which ones make sense to own and which ones ought to be banned because, yeah, there's no real need to have one unless you want to kill a lot of people, then that really helps the debate steer towards more moderate waters.
Gun control is coming. It's a generational thing and they're going to disagree with Penn & Teller.
-
Which brings me to that second amendment... the original draft of it was this:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
I was going to explain your misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but, I will let Penn & Teller do it for me:
With all due respect to Mr. Penn and Mr. Teller, bullshit. :smug:
That interpretation is interesting, but didn't come from a Supreme Court justice. These did:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”.
It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
DC vs Heller *did* rule that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of an individual to own a weapon for home defense.
***
One more note on whether or not a loss of guns is the first thing that the tyrants do, consider that in the British colonies that later rebelled, the British only limited arms imports and sales after anti-loyalist groups began forming militias with the intent of opposing the loyalist militias. IE, there was a threat of open rebellion, so the government in charge took measures to preserve order. But the anti-loyalist colonists were already claiming that the British were oppressive and tyrannical prior to their formation of militias, so the gathering of guns most certainly was NOT the first thing done to make a tyrant out of the British.
-
Mr. Penn did not contradict any of those supreme court statements.
Adam Lanza was an NRA member.
This is false. :redcard:
-
Penn's holding that it's a militia that's barred from taking arms away is way off. The Bill of Rights at first only applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the several states and their governments until after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Then, in later decisions, justices held that the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the states into the federal system and that the rights in the Bill of Rights could be individually tested in court to see if they applied on the state level. Over the years, various rights have been incorporated so that they form a minimum standard for states to follow.
The 2nd Amendment, as written and ratified, applied to the federal government, not the state governments. The well-regulated militia would be a state-run military force, not a federal one. Constitutionally, states were not allowed to have navies, but were allowed to keep troops. Again, over time, the state militias were incorporated into the federal army and now constitute the National Guard units that can be called up for active duty service to supplement regular army forces.
Again, I'll take Supreme Court opinions over those of Mr. Penn. There's stuff we can say in court that justices will consider and stuff that they'll laugh off. SC opinions, they listen to. What Penn said, nope. Maybe an interesting idea, but nope.
Fact is, state and local laws that regulate firearm ownership *have* been upheld by the SC. So long as the laws do not go against the Heller ruling, they stand a good chance of being upheld in court.
-
Within the last 100 years, these governments either disarmed their entire populace, or select portions therein, and then they killed the ever-lovin' shit out of them:
Turkey, Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda.
Going back further back in time, history shows the same pattern.
Jan Zizka is roundly considered one of the greatest military leaders of all time. Depending on the time of day, most folks who care about such things consider him the best.
Because he showed thousands of peasants - who were not allowed to own weapons of any kind - how to improvise and fight tens of thousands of well armed, well trained, and well provisioned soldiers who were going to kill them all and take their stuff.
He never lost a battle.
Which is beside the point, but highlights the fact that an unarmed populace is much easier to herd than an armed populace.
-
The writing was on the wall, however, for the Armenians of Turkey, the Jews and Roma of Germany, and the indigenous peoples of Guatemala.
In the case of Cambodia, the disarmament accompanied a violent rise to power of the Khmer Rouges, so the disarmament was more a matter of the *failure* of the people of Cambodia to resist tyranny with their arms.
The Tsars of Russia and the Warlords of China were not known for their benevolence towards peasants, nor their general arming thereof, save to have them participate in their armies. Whatever arms the populace had were insufficient to stave off the rise of Communism in either land.
Meanwhile, in the UK, a practically disarmed populace... pretty much does just fine without threat to their democracy. In the assault weapon-deprived antipodes of Australia... looks like they're still having a lively little democracy running over there with nary a tyrant lurking in the wings. In the lands of the Germans, the Swiss, and the Canadians, restrictions on weapon ownership have not yet resulted in a collapse of the freedoms of those people.
In the relatively gun-rich USA, we seem to be constantly turning our weapons on ourselves. This is unacceptable to the rising generation. THey're not buying arguments that guns protect freedom or secure rights. They see piles of corpses of innocents and they correlate that with the general availability of weapons. If the only response to that rising tide is to repeat the arguments that have zero effect on them, then that 2nd Amendment is going to see some serious action from states exercising their 10th Amendment rights to pass laws as they see fit and the Supreme Court upholding them so long as they do not deny the right to own a weapon in one's home for the purposes of self-defense.
It's not a question of being right or wrong in one's mind, it's a question of finding a way to mitigate what happens when someone one knows to be wrong gets power and starts taking the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment to heart.
-
The writing was on the wall,
Sure, nothing springs from a vacuum, especially when you're talking about social manipulation.
In other news, there are so many freaking guns in the USA they just blow around the landscape like refuse:
http://www.kctv5.com/story/38276340/driver-finds-handgun-lodged-in-front-bumper (http://www.kctv5.com/story/38276340/driver-finds-handgun-lodged-in-front-bumper)
-
The writing was on the wall,
Sure, nothing springs from a vacuum, especially when you're talking about social manipulation.
In other news, there are so many freaking guns in the USA they just blow around the landscape like refuse:
http://www.kctv5.com/story/38276340/driver-finds-handgun-lodged-in-front-bumper (http://www.kctv5.com/story/38276340/driver-finds-handgun-lodged-in-front-bumper)
:rofl: Thanks for starting my day with a great laugh, Vyn. An "awesome" you shall have.
-
^ Wow... that's a story one normally expects to see coming out of Florida...
-
A new video game called “Active Shooter” is drawing plenty of outrage as it allows players to simulate a school shooting. The “dynamic S.W.A. T. simulator” game is expected to be released on June 6. It will be available on Steam, a digital distribution platform. Perhaps even more egregious, the game gives you the choice of being the S.W.A.T team member or the shooter murdering innocent children. “Pick your role, gear up and fight or destroy!” the game description reads.
If a kid plays this a lot and then goes out and shoots school children, I'm sure plenty of clowns will still blame the NRA. :doh:
-
I'm sure plenty of clowns will still blame the NRA. :doh:
Z mentioned "being taken seriously" in an earlier post. There have been a few talking heads over the past couple of months (that I've seen anyway) referring to the NRA as a terrorist organization.
I don't take them seriously.
If you're goal is to preach to the choir, putting nonsense like "the NRA are terrorists" on stilts works great. If you're trying to convince those who are trying to learn, you've failed. And look like a dumbass.
Goes for both sides. Which is interesting in and of itself. Why two sides? Why not twelve sides? Because it is much easier to get people to act on emotion rather than logic when you take away nuance and grey areas.
-
I'm sure some non-clowns would blame the NRA, as well. It's set itself up as a polarizing force in the debate, pretty much refusing to compromise. Even then, there are people that think the NRA is too soft on the issue.
It's not a terrorist organization as much as it is a radicalizing organization. It doesn't radicalize to generate violence, but it radicalizes to prevent thoughtful solutions to limiting gun-related violence in the USA.
The very fact that it's getting funding from Russia tells me that it's poisoning the minds and conversations in the USA. Russia doesn't have infinite resources, so when it has to undermine another country, it has to be very selective where it targets its efforts. That it picked the NRA is very telling.
-
I'm sure some non-clowns would blame the NRA, as well. It's set itself up as a polarizing force in the debate, pretty much refusing to compromise. Even then, there are people that think the NRA is too soft on the issue.
That hits the root issue with the political system in the United States across the board. The people that blame the NRA for refusing to compromise miss the mark, because the NRA does not create legislation.
They are a powerful lobbying force, but that's all. Blaming them is like blaming the guy you're running against in a foot race for being stronger and faster than you are, when what you should be doing is figuring out how to be faster and stronger yourself.
It's not a terrorist organization as much as it is a radicalizing organization. It doesn't radicalize to generate violence, but it radicalizes to prevent thoughtful solutions to limiting gun-related violence in the USA.
The NRA is not a terrorist organization in any way, shape, or form, through creed, thought, or deed.
Murder is illegal in the United States.
That is the only law that should be needed to address the issue. Sadly, not everyone is well-meaning and thoughtful. Jumping right to the end point here, we can go ahead and ban so-called "assault rifles", but those children who go and kill other children will just use something else. Like a shotgun, or .38 revolver. And here is where I stop going down that rabbit hole.
The very fact that it's getting funding from Russia
Where is that fact at? Because Schiff, et. al. stated he is concerned and wants to look into whether that happened?
But let's get a bit more specific here. Foreign nationals can be members of the NRA, so is that "funding" in the form of membership dues? Or is that funding from Torshin purchasing NRA branded products?
tells me that it's poisoning the minds and conversations in the USA.
When you say "it's", do you mean Russia or the NRA? If it is the former, then no doubt Russia contantly does whatever it can to jack up the USA. If it is the latter, then that is a matter of opinion. I'm certain that if the NRA consisted solely of one old guy with a deer rifle passing around hand-written announcements calling for the protection of our right to bear arms, someone would still say the NRA was poisoning minds and conversations.
Except that one old dude would have no power so people would ignore him. But the NRA is a powerful lobbying machine, so the folks that disagree with their stance are going to frame the NRA's actions in as negative a light as possible.
Russia doesn't have infinite resources, so when it has to undermine another country, it has to be very selective where it targets its efforts. That it picked the NRA is very telling.
What does that tell? That the NRA is powerful?
-
NRA lobbyists *do* write the laws. That's what lobbying organizations do. They write the laws and give them to legislators to pass. That, or tell their legislators what to vote against.
And always with the "killers gonna kill" diversion. Gun control isn't about eliminating murder, it's about reducing the casualty rate. I guarantee if the Las Vegas shooter was using black powder smoothbore muskets, the casualties of that incident would have been much, much lower.
Trying to reduce casualties and overall numbers of mass shootings without reducing the availability and number of weapons with high fire rates and large magazines is like trying to improve lung health without giving up smoking.
-
NRA lobbyists *do* write the laws. That's what lobbying organizations do. They write the laws and give them to legislators to pass. That, or tell their legislators what to vote against.
If you want to ban all lobbyists, then I'm fine with that. But, not just one.
And always with the "killers gonna kill" diversion. Gun control isn't about eliminating murder, it's about reducing the casualty rate. I guarantee if the Las Vegas shooter was using black powder smoothbore muskets, the casualties of that incident would have been much, much lower.
So where does this method end?
Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .
-
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
-
So where does this method end?
Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .
The only reasonable way to end it is to get rid of weapons... :)
-
NRA lobbyists *do* write the laws. That's what lobbying organizations do. They write the laws and give them to legislators to pass. That, or tell their legislators what to vote against.
Which is what is wrong with our political system...apparently very few people actually VOTE for legislators that aren't on the take. Legislators with INTEGRITY. In fact, personal integrity, honesty, compassion, and servant leadership - or hell, any kind of actual leadership, is a rarity among politicians and the greater populace in general.
Get rid of lobbying groups altogether.
Or better yet, have more than a few percent of the voting population get involved in learning about our government and vote for people who have the greater good at heart. But that won't happen. Same reason why people aren't going to stop killing each other. Or treating each other like shit, or happily stepping on others if it means they think they're getting a step up in life. Or treating each other with basic god damned human decency and respect. Fuck.
And always with the "killers gonna kill" diversion. Gun control isn't about eliminating murder, it's about reducing the casualty rate. I guarantee if the Las Vegas shooter was using black powder smoothbore muskets, the casualties of that incident would have been much, much lower.
It isn't a diversion, it's the truth. Regardless, The USA tends to follow England regarding societal changes - with a gap of a few hundred years. Depending. But I do believe that one day the USA will ban all firearms, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
In Mexico, you can walk out in the street and chop someone's head off with a machete for no apparent reason (just kill and kill again, survive my brutal thrashing, I'll hunt you to the end...sorry got sidetracked with song lyrics) and go to prison for a few years.
Get caught with a .22 derringer in your pocket? Unloaded? You're going away for 15-20 years. No bail, no nothing.
Anyway...
Trying to reduce casualties and overall numbers of mass shootings without reducing the availability and number of weapons with high fire rates and large magazines is like trying to improve lung health without giving up smoking.
Meh. High fire-rates (not sure what that means in this context - one trigger pull = one shot for everything but automatics) and large capacity magazines (which means what? 30? 100? 10?) mean fuck-all. Ban them. Don't ban them. I don't care, and I can promise you that maniacs don't care either. THAT is a diversion. The NRA plays the opposition game to keep the narrative away from the real issues.
And some folks eat it up. Again, the NRA does not create legislation, our elected reps do. And the people do the electing.
People need to wake up. But they won't. As long as they can have cheese doodles and Mountain Dew they'll ignore whatever is happening to SOMEONE ELSE.
-
So where does this method end?
Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .
The only reasonable way to end it is to get rid of weapons... :)
Great, so in the end, I won't even be able to cut my steak for dinner. :wall: Now who can live like that?
-
So where does this method end?
Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .
The only reasonable way to end it is to get rid of weapons... :)
Great, so in the end, I won't even be able to cut my steak for dinner. :wall: Now who can live like that?
Apparently, the Australians do just fine and it's not a slippery slope there, it's a matter of sensible, workable public policy.
As for voting, I'm going with a straight Democratic ticket this year. The candidates are not taking money from lobbyists like the NRA - the candidates for Senate and Governor here in Texas aren't taking any PAC money at all - and they're promising to vote for sensible regulations. I'm all for making the USA more like Australia or the UK in regards to gun laws.
-
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
In your article it stated that: "Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone."
Well here is another important fact: As many as 70 active and inactive Chicago street gangs with 753 factions have been identified.
Now I ask you, how many street gangs exist in the entire country of Australia? I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet it is far less than Chicago, and this is just 1 major city in America. Comparing our 2 countries whose makeup and lifestyles are so vastly different is nonsensical.
-
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
In your article it stated that: "Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone."
Well here is another important fact: As many as 70 active and inactive Chicago street gangs with 753 factions have been identified.
Now I ask you, how many street gangs exist in the entire country of Australia? I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet it is far less than Chicago, and this is just 1 major city in America. Comparing our 2 countries whose makeup and lifestyles are so vastly different is nonsensical.
Dont know the exact statistics on gangs here but I do know it's many and out of control, especially since the Sudanese have migrated here. Thankfully they can't gain access to guns as they can in your country.
-
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
In your article it stated that: "Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone."
Well here is another important fact: As many as 70 active and inactive Chicago street gangs with 753 factions have been identified.
Now I ask you, how many street gangs exist in the entire country of Australia? I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet it is far less than Chicago, and this is just 1 major city in America. Comparing our 2 countries whose makeup and lifestyles are so vastly different is nonsensical.
Dont know the exact statistics on gangs here but I do know it's many and out of control, especially since the Sudanese have migrated here. Thankfully they can't gain access to guns as they can in your country.
Well if they are anything like the gangs in Chicago, they still must be killing each other. But my main point was that if you were to remove the gangs and leave the guns, that 500 number would be way down.
-
... but I do know it's many and out of control, especially since the Sudanese have migrated here. Thankfully they can't gain access to guns as they can in your country.
That's no shit. Whereas Sudanese migrants in Victoria account for one half percent of the total population, they account for one and a half percent of arrests for violent assaults. Plus, over half of those Sudanese are men under the age of 25, from fragmented families (because Australia brought them in as a humanitarian effort, the young men's families being left behind or dead).
Turnbull stated recently that the African gangs are the root of the problem in Victoria. To the extent that people are afraid to go out in the evenings. Imagine if those gangs had ready access to firearms? Those folks the PM talked about would be even more afraid.
Of course, the opposition party claims differently, but who is one going to believe? The PM or some folks who want to be the PM?
-
^^^^^
So much for humanitarian efforts. :doh:
-
Not to conflate the refugee issue with the gun issue, but I've got direct experience dealing with refugees. I've had students that were gang-raped by soldiers in their home countries, among other horror stories. Bringing in refugees is not enough - they must be given actual *refuge* in order to make better their shattered lives.
The Dallas area had a crime spike immediately following Hurricane Katrina, as we had a large internal refugee population come to us here from Louisiana. We bore it as part of the price we were willing to pay to extend aid to our fellow Americans.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCo2QMJcsDg
-
This did not go over well...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/kris-kobach-parade-machine-gun/
The fact that Kobach followed up with an unapologetic response to what he termed a "snowflake meltdown" only further illustrates how out of step with the times he and his party have become. Those snowflakes are now starting to vote. There have been waaaaaay too many school shootings of late for Mr. Kobach's presentation to have done anything but outraged that group, and I look for that to cost him at the polls.
GOP being out of touch with young voters is a larger issue, but this is part of that, a very large part of that. The currently up-and-coming generation is already being termed "The Parkland Generation", talk about your big hints there...
It's also an issue of gender, in a negative way. Most victims of domestic gun violence are women and children, just before the boyfreind/father/husband turns the weapon on himself. Guys like Kobach project that image, but the response is generally negative among people who consider themselves as targets. It's like somebody advocating cannibalism at a meeting of vegetarians. It's not going to be well-received.
And when women or people of color use their weapons in self defense or are otherwise carrying them legally, where has the gun lobby been to speak on their behalf?
Marisa Alexander used a gun to stand her ground against an abuser. She did prison time. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/marissa-alexander-released-stand-your-ground.html
Same state as Zimmerman, who killed Treyvon Martin with the same excuse. Alexander fired a warning shot and went to jail, Zimmerman shot to kill and walked. I remember the gun lobbyists being all about supporting Zimmerman, not a word about Alexander.
Bresha Meadows used a gun to stop a bad person, her father in this case. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/bresha-meadows-father-killing.html She almost got an aggravated murder charge, but was able to plead that down. Again, nowhere was a gun rights advocate to be found in her defense.
So all that talk about being able to use weapons in self defense seems like it's true only for white males. If you're a minority and/or female, you will face charges and quite likely incarceration.
I'm with the kids, there's no need to keep ALL the guns.
At the same time, there are kids who do spend lots of family time with their siblings and parents at gun ranges. It's not like the gun lobby is without allies in the younger generation. It's just that if the gun lobby doesn't find ways to make compromises, those allies won't amount to anything in mitigating what the coming generations are planning to do about gun control.
-
Same state as Zimmerman, who killed Treyvon Martin with the same excuse. Alexander fired a warning shot and went to jail, Zimmerman shot to kill and walked. I remember the gun lobbyists being all about supporting Zimmerman, not a word about Alexander.
So all that talk about being able to use weapons in self defense seems like it's true only for white males. If you're a minority and/or female, you will face charges and quite likely incarceration.
:redcard: George Zimmerman is not white.
-
Same state as Zimmerman, who killed Treyvon Martin with the same excuse. Alexander fired a warning shot and went to jail, Zimmerman shot to kill and walked. I remember the gun lobbyists being all about supporting Zimmerman, not a word about Alexander.
So all that talk about being able to use weapons in self defense seems like it's true only for white males. If you're a minority and/or female, you will face charges and quite likely incarceration.
:redcard: George Zimmerman is not white.
He was whiter than Treyvon... also more male than the other two ladies mentioned...
-
Hrm...cherry picking is every bit as much a fallacy of reason as bandwagoning. Seneca spent a lot more words describing the latter :)
I do have trouble understanding how a hispanic man is "whiter" than an African-American man. What's really funny about that sentence is the three different domains those race descriptors come from. One is a color, another is an origin, the other is some loosely applicable nonsense.
So I guess really it should be a brown man is whiter than a black man. On the color wheel, brown certainly contains more white than black does.
But, really, this is silly.
Oh, the gal that fired the warning shot? That's what sent her up the river. "She couldn't have been in fear for her life, because she fired a warning shot, otherwise she would have just shot the dude." That's how the prosecution frames stuff like that. It doesn't have to make sense.
:banana:
-
Same state as Zimmerman, who killed Treyvon Martin with the same excuse. Alexander fired a warning shot and went to jail, Zimmerman shot to kill and walked. I remember the gun lobbyists being all about supporting Zimmerman, not a word about Alexander.
So all that talk about being able to use weapons in self defense seems like it's true only for white males. If you're a minority and/or female, you will face charges and quite likely incarceration.
:redcard: George Zimmerman is not white.
He was whiter than Treyvon... also more male than the other two ladies mentioned...
Oh, I remember Treyvon now. He's the guy who had George Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating his head in. :P
-
So here's an incremental, rather than sweeping argument:
This last shooting was done by a guy that had already made death threats against his targets. The victims complained about the death threats and the police said that there was nothing that they could do. To me, that shows a need for a law that provides the police with a path forward, not a brick wall.
Make a law that makes a death threat a crime of conspiracy to commit murder. Pursuant to evidence of such a crime, police would be able to search the premises, vehicle, workplace, etc. of the perpetrator as part of a search done for a crime in progress and/or to prevent harm. Anything bigger than a butter knife can be gathered up and sent to the evidence locker. Perpetrator's name goes on the list of people to not sell guns to.
If someone is crazy enough to make a direct death threat, that person is crazy enough to not have access to weapons.
The next gray area is where someone drops hints about killing or makes threats about violence in general. Well, maybe we shouldn't be doing those, either. We will still be surprised by cases where there are no signs of danger, but most shootings don't come out of nowhere. There are signs and behaviors that precede most mass shootings. Use those patterns, criminalize them, and then there's a corresponding, targeted, reduction in violence.
-
^^^ I mostly agree with the way you're thinking, but were to draw the line? The police can't come sweeping in each time some nutters yells out "dude, i'm gonna kill you".
-
^^^ I mostly agree with the way you're thinking, but were to draw the line? The police can't come sweeping in each time some nutters yells out "dude, i'm gonna kill you".
If he's a nutter, maybe they should...
-
Tough call. At a minimum, I think the police can check to see what weapons the guy owns and a system could be put in place by which the police are notified if the guy purchases guns or ammunition. Kind of a watch list like we have now for terrorists.
-
^^^ I mostly agree with the way you're thinking, but were to draw the line? The police can't come sweeping in each time some nutters yells out "dude, i'm gonna kill you".
If he's a nutter, maybe they should...
Would require ALOT of extra police work, though. And by "nutter" i mean someone just saying the phrase without thinking about what it even means, and not meaning it. You know there's alot of them...
-
I like the watchlist idea, especially if the police read a canned statement to the person and give a heads-up to local vendors that this guy can't buy ammo or additional weapons.
As for the offhand remarks, if someone says it enough so that a target records the video or gets an email or facebook post/message, then I think we can elevate that to the level of "I think this guy is serious."
-
Legal gun owner 1
Bad guy 0
https://concealednation.org/2019/05/father-saves-entire-family-and-stops-home-invader-with-head-shot-in-california/?fbclid=IwAR2tTeT0aRfEbDM7jOPXtZ1YJ5MlTUEP9ejkhwDdA1yP0MNTfX8Z_qjQJKc (https://concealednation.org/2019/05/father-saves-entire-family-and-stops-home-invader-with-head-shot-in-california/?fbclid=IwAR2tTeT0aRfEbDM7jOPXtZ1YJ5MlTUEP9ejkhwDdA1yP0MNTfX8Z_qjQJKc)
-
^^^^^^
(https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0041/24/1509437086283.png)
-
Good shoot. I wonder how hard the DA is going to go after the homeowner. California, man.
-
Legal gun owner who turned out to be a bad guy: 0
City of Virginia Beach : -12
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/us/virginia-beach-shooting-sunday/index.html
-
-
^ So you're saying you wanted the Muslims in Christchurch to be armed while they attended services? But that view is inconsistent with one that holds Muslims to be almost entirely made up of radicals, dangerous to the world and at war with the West.
No. This guy is your political next-door neighbor. We're going to see more of his ilk because the right refuses to properly police itself and to make clear the distinctions between political conservatism and hateful racist/nationalist ideologies. Those extremists are tolerated by many on the right and encouraged by enough for them to grow in influence and reach. The Christchurch murderer was motivated by the very "We are at war with Islam" comment we were discussing in another thread. Acts such as this one stem directly from that sort of propaganda.
If someone in the mosque had a weapon and used it to incapacitate or kill the Christchurch murderer, he would still have made a symbolic attack on a mosque and would still be a martyr to the movement. As for casualties, I agree with the NZ government. Pass laws to make classes of weapons illegal so that they are more difficult to obtain, thereby reducing the frequency of attacks such as these. They cannot be eliminated, but they can be reduced in frequency.
-
Now to call BS on the video's logic. This Christchurch shooting compares to the Orlando nightclub shooting of 2016. Similar crowd, similar body count.
Would armed individuals in the nightclub have stopped that shooter? Let's say the answer is yes. The follow-on question is, what else would happen if people carried weapons into places where they intended to get drunk and where emotions could flare occasionally?
:nono:
In every other industrialized nation that has limited access to firearms in the wake of a mass shooting, the frequency of those mass shootings has decreased substantially. The decreases are, in fact, steeper than the decreases in available, legal firearms.
This was the first mass shooting in NZ since 1997. Let that sink in - first since 1997. Taking 1997 and 2019 as bookends, NZ has had 56 killed due to mass shootings in 2 events. The USA has had 984 in 140 events. Take 2019 out and NZ has only 6 killed in one event - 1997. Take 2019 out of the US numbers, and the USA totals go down to in 951 in 133 events. True the US population is 65 times that of NZ, but 6 in one times 95 equals 570 in 95, both far below the actual numbers. The USA is disproportionately mass-murder-y and I look at our lax gun controls as the primary contributing factor.
Looking over the list of 140 mass shootings in the USA since 1997, there were names of places that I thought I'd never forget, but have forgotten due to the sheer volume of mass shootings. I hate to say it, but there's enough in there to make for a rousing round of trivia.
Quick, name 6 of the 8 elementary or high schools where a mass shooting has taken place since the Sandy Hook shooting of December 2012!
Name the two airports that were scenes of mass shootings after 2012. For a bonus, name the two military facilities that were sites of mass shootings in that same interval.
Name the mass killing that involved an Uber driver.
Name the shooting at a Texas church that had 27 fatalities that took place just over a month after the Las Vegas shooting.
I could go on and on, but I wish I couldn't. We forget these supposedly "never forget" moments because there are so many of them. We need better gun controls so that the tragedies are infrequent enough that they truly do stand out. The first big one - Whitman's sniper murders from the UT tower - absolutely stands out because it was the first. But do we now recall the event that first exceeded that death toll? Hint, it was in 1984, and we thought then we'd never forget it.
-
Holy smokes, my USA numbers were low because I used the Wikipedia summary page for years since 2012 and not the Wiki pages for each year, which have more detail. This is outrageous... For example, the summary page shows 33 dead in 7 mass shootings in 2019. There have actually been 153 in the year to date. Shootings, that is. Deaths from mass shootings stands at 149 year to date, with 607 injuries.
Of course, injury could mean anything from a hard scrape on up to a limb being shot off or part of a jaw or skull being shot away.
It should also be noted that definitions of mass shootings vary. Wikipedia cites 6 definitions and then notes that only incidents that satisfy at least two of those definitions are counted... so that means there are other incidents with multiple shootings, but because they were spread out over time or did not meet a casualty threshold, they were not accounted in the Wikipedia page.
Pass some laws, already, this is unacceptable.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/33d5adc00e6f235302f1c1748cf35abc/tenor.gif)
-
^ So you're saying you wanted the Muslims in Christchurch to be armed while they attended services? But that view is inconsistent with one that holds Muslims to be almost entirely made up of radicals, dangerous to the world and at war with the West.
No. This guy is your political next-door neighbor.
For the record, Matt Christiansen, although not a registered Democrat, has voted democrat over 80% of the time in his life. So you should find out more about a person before trying to label them. Matt is definitely to the left of me (although he seems to be smartening up ;)). I suppose now you will go ahead and label me. :twitch:
-
^ So you're saying you wanted the Muslims in Christchurch to be armed while they attended services? But that view is inconsistent with one that holds Muslims to be almost entirely made up of radicals, dangerous to the world and at war with the West.
No. This guy is your political next-door neighbor.
For the record, Matt Christiansen, although not a registered Democrat, has voted democrat over 80% of the time in his life. So you should find out more about a person before trying to label them. Matt is definitely to the left of me (although he seems to be smartening up ;)). I suppose now you will go ahead and label me. :twitch:
So *now* you do some research. :)
Very well, he may not be next door, but it looks like he's checking out your neighborhood. All the same, I'm not going to agree with him. Reducing access to weapons means reducing the death toll from those weapons over time, it's as simple as that. We've seen it all around the industrialized world, it's time we went down the path that actually works.
-
MC's complaint was that New Zealand banned everything! Even you're not saying that.
-
Yeah, whatever he's saying, I'm not agreeing with in general.
-
Colt has stopped selling AR-15 rifles to civilians. For those that aren't aware, Colt owns the trademark for AR15 and AR-15. I guess they don't own AR 15 lol. Anyway, the timing is interesting even though it is strictly a financial move.
-
Well I'm assuming the civilian market has been marginal anyways. Probably over 95% goes to law enforcement and military use.
I remember reading about Colt starting the development for the replacement of the AR in the near future.
-
Colt has stopped selling AR-15 rifles to civilians. For those that aren't aware, Colt owns the trademark for AR15 and AR-15. I guess they don't own AR 15 lol. Anyway, the timing is interesting even though it is strictly a financial move.
"Is very good boomstick, I get you AR_15."
"Yes, but is it an AR-15?"
"Underscore, hyphen, what is difference? I sell you very good boomstick, also sell you AR/15, if you like!"
-
Personally, I'm not buying one until they release an AR!15.
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
-
Personally, I'm not buying one until they release an AR!15.
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
OK, for you we get that. Special best price!
-
William Shatner blasts cops for drawing guns on scared female ‘Star Wars’ Stormtrooper
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/05/06/william-shatner-blasts-cops-for-drawing-guns-on-scared-female-star-wars-stormtrooper-917669?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get+Response&utm_term=EMAIL
-
I don't know why neighbors were worried, everybody knows a stormtrooper can't hit the broadside of a barn at 10 feet with their laser guns.
On a serious note, that kind of thing happens all too often (sans the star wars costume). A bit of common sense would go a long way towards making them non-events. I'm glad she didn't get shot to death.
-
Saw Bill post this on facebook a while back...horrible thing....
I do kind of understand that overreaction as there had just been a mass shooting and they might have thought that someone might be using a "clever" disguise...but come on...
-
Doesn’t look to be a lot in that. Video doesn’t look half as bad as the article makes out.
Also, I’m sure the Canadian police would’ve still been very much on edge after the mass shooting the week before.
-
^^^^^^
Doesn't look that bad unless you are the one being put in handcuffs. Once the cops recognized it was a toy gun, they could have inquired as to what her purpose there was. Of course this would have required them to do some actual thinking on their feet. Pretty foolish behavior by the police.
-
Nah, it’s not as if she was thrown to the ground head pushed hard onto the concrete with arm twisted up her back. And as I mentioned, those cops would’ve been highly on edge with what had happened a few days earlier. Besides, if adults wanna dress up like little kiddies in public and pretend they’re running around in a movie they probably deserve a little clip every now & then.
-
I'm sitting out in my shop (well, part of my garage with shop stuff in it). I have the garage door open, it's about 70 degrees F with a slight cool breeze. It's cloudy, the birds are chirping, a woodpecker is pecking on a tree about 50 yards from my garage, and off in the distance there's a dog barking.
In general, a very relaxed day.
Within the context of this environment, I have decided to tighten down on a gun control issue at my home. I have a 1911 platform .45, and I've decided to change the grips on it. My hope is that these new grips will add slightly to my ability to reacquire a target faster and thus give me more control over my gun. We'll see if my gun control efforts produce the actual results I'm seeking, or if it's merely a waste of my time and money.
:rockon:
-
Besides, if adults wanna dress up like little kiddies in public and pretend they’re running around in a movie they probably deserve a little clip every now & then.
:naughty: She was an employee of the Coco Vanilla Galactic Cantina who asked her to do this to help promote business in these tough times. She was doing her job.
-
Besides, if adults wanna dress up like little kiddies in public and pretend they’re running around in a movie they probably deserve a little clip every now & then.
:naughty: She was an employee of the Coco Vanilla Galactic Cantina who asked her to do this to help promote business in these tough times. She was doing her job.
That was tongue in cheek but I still don’t blame the cops though.