Gun control

[MrGoodDate]

And is anyone so nieve as to not think that the weapons manufacturers are making huge amounts of money from guns and arms sent internationally and supplying both sides in the many conflicts abroad? Of course they want no controls.

 

[JTalbain]

Let's look at their culture. Who has one of the highest suicide rates in the world? They have a famous forest where people go to kill themselves.

Which has what exactly to do with the murder rate? Or the violent crime rate? This is an irrelevant and meaningless deflection.

Here's the video where I pull the 3.5x higher figure from:
Choose Your Own Crime Stats - YouTube
Stats from the FBI and the Home Office, which he says is the UK equivalent of the FBI.

Also let me get this straight, you're willing to take the 11k gun deaths from the FBI no questions asked, but when you're given the figure for the UK, oh, it's this doesn't count, that doesn't count, and this also doesn't count, so now the stats look better.

Actually, what I said applies EXACTLY to what you just said. Skip to 2:35 of your own video. All the Home Office does is take and use the crime stats as reported by police. It does not independently create or compile its own statistics. So what I was saying about the way said crimes are recorded is perfectly applicable. The police are the source of the statistics the site your YouTube video cites, and they themselves say that the way they currently record the crimes skews their statistics. So that needs to be taken into account in the reporting.

Liberal thinking.

You missed some punctuation there. It's actually, "Liberal. Thinking." I could try to turn that around and say what it makes me think of you, but it's an unnecessary effort. Everyone already knows what a sock puppet you are.

 

[JTalbain]

Here's some criminals following the letter of the law...NOT:
Passenger Opens Fire On Deputies With An AK-47 During Car Chase - Los Angeles Local News, Weather, and Traffic
30 round mags and pistol grips are banned in CA. So nice of the criminals to follow the law. Oh wait.

This is the kind of fearmongering that is eyeroll worthy. Tell me this: if there was no assault weapons ban in California, do you honestly think this incident would not have occurred? Do you think some law abiding businessman on the street would have produced an AK-47 or AR-15 from his suit pocket and fired on their car? And the police were already chasing him, so he had already committed a crime, likely without said weapon. How exactly does this add to the debate? Are you attempting to make a case that gun control laws don't keep the guns off the streets, so instead the government needs to aggressively confiscate them?

Wow, you have an imaginary gun hating left wing calling for the repeal of the second amendment as your created opponent, and you're still trying to make their case for them. Good job.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Gun deaths in the US, though more numerous than in the UK, are not particularly common. More people die in car crashes and at least a dozen other ways, than die from guns, every year.

Remember...we're assuming that the goal is to save the most lives possible.

So why would you go after something that's so far down on the list?

Can you link to whatever list you're using?
(I know it can't include such items as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and kidney disease, as JTalbain mentioned. There's got to be more meaningful and relevant entries.)

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Also let me get this straight, you're willing to take the 11k gun deaths from the FBI no questions asked, but when you're given the figure for the UK, oh, it's this doesn't count, that doesn't count, and this also doesn't count, so now the stats look better.

If the UK figures are compiled in a fashion that would count more crimes as violent than the American process does, then the British figures and those from the FBI are simply not commensurable.
Isn't that obvious?

Liberal thinking.

It's not liberal thinking, it's not elevated thinking, it's not even conservative thinking.
It's just common sense.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

And also to really look into who is being killed, most of the time, by guns and why... the answer being gangs killing gang members over turf and drugs, which again opens the door to the legalization of drugs, thus killing the golden goose and motivation for many criminals.

While I don't agree with most of your post, I do begin to understand it.
But here ... here ... you're hitting the nail right on the head.
Don't know if it will ever be politically possible though.

 

[JTalbain]

Can you link to whatever list you're using?
(I know it can't include such items as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and kidney disease, as JTalbain mentioned. There's got to be more meaningful and relevant entries.)

Pick a list, pretty much all of them include such things.
FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death
USA TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATH
TLC Family "15 Most Common Causes of Death in the United States"
Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Pick a list, pretty much all of them include such things.
FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death
USA TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATH
TLC Family "15 Most Common Causes of Death in the United States"
Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts

I know.

 

[Fuzzy_]

Let's see, what does another British publication have to say in its defense? Crime figures 'don't add up' - Telegraph Let's see here... "Half of all violent crime in the statistics involves no physical injury and includes such offences as bigamy."

Wait a minute, a dude who marries two women is now committing a violent crime? How exactly are they recording crime in the UK? Anxiety Culture: Media scaremongering on crime

• Certain "yobbish" behaviours (eg minor scuffles) have been reclassified as crime, with the effect of doubling recorded violent crime.
• A violent crime with many victims is no longer recorded as a single crime. An incident with 5 victims is now recorded as 5 crimes.
• A higher proportion of violent crime is recorded. The proportion of common assaults (without injury) recorded rose from around 50% to 68% between 2002 and 2003.

The two main sources of crime figures – the police and the British Crime Survey (BCS) – both indicate that, allowing for these recording changes, violent crime has fallen since 1998.

Right. So people are manipulating statistics to say exactly what they want, in both cases. Certain elements of the British media are scaremongering, and the NRA is hijacking their story to say that the rates are so high because of the UK's gun control laws.

Gun murder rates keep things simple and prevent distortion by right-wing pundits trying to obfuscate the issue.

This is likely why Alex Jones tried to prevent Piers Morgan from stating that there were 11,458 gun murders in the US and 35 in the UK last year during their "debate." It took Morgan over two minutes to ask that single question because of all of the red herrings (including chimpanzees and sharks) that Jones kept shouting out. He thew in the same supposed UK violent crime rate that you mentioned too.

Fuzzy isn't sure why the right wants to believe that violent crime is on the rise in the UK other than to suit their agenda. Violent crime in the UK has decreased since the 1997 gun ban.

In the video made after his interview with Piers Morgan, Jones said, "If something happens to us ... we're killed by crackheads ... it was the NYPD or mafia, period."
Later, "We've got goodfellas climbing out our butts right now."
He compared himself to George Washington.
He said, "When they come for the guns, it's all about enslavement." This, at a moment when they're only talking about limiting assault weapons.
There is just no real perspective there at all.

Let's hope he makes it out of NYC alive. It's a war zone, after all. Apparently he had difficulty just getting to NYC:

Alex Jones: Radio host and conspiracy theorist 'detained by TSA agents ahead of his appearance on Piers Morgan

 

[balsary]

Ye have little faith. :tongue:

I'd say it's because of a few reasons: First off, most of the causes above firearms on the list are diseases and various other medical problems. You can't just legislate these problems away. They take extensive research or, in the case of behaviorally caused deaths, long years of socially engineering away that aspect of culture. It is also worth noting that one of the things above firearms on the list was a lack of medical insurance, which efforts were very publicly made to remedy.

You're right, you can't just legislate problems like heart disease and cancer away. What you can do is legislate against known causes of these problems. Cigarettes certainly cause many deaths every year in the US, as does alcohol. If you want me to pull the statistics I will, but I think you can agree. Why is there no focus on these?

It's a thankless job trying to fix any of the other problems as well. You ask why they don't target more prevalent problems? Three of the biggest items on the list, all above firearm deaths, are Cardiovascular disease (#1 by far), Diabetes, and Kidney disease (a complication that can develop from diabetes). Since obesity is directly related to increased risk of all of the above, it sounds like we should start trying to discourage people from being fat bastards. So what are the causes of obesity? Lack of exercise and too much food intake, in particular bad foods. Well you can't force people to exercise and it would be a serious hassle to ban all unhealthy foods, so why not just ban the worst offenders? Hmmm.... science shows that the absolute worst foods are trans fats and sugars. Let's ban the trans fats and the biggest way that citizens consume way too much sugar, really big sodas. Both of these things were done by New York, in an attempt to make their population healthier and save lives, and the government was villainized and slandered as a massive nanny state from anything remotely right wing.


So why focus on firearms? Because it is a problem that can be directly targeted with legislation, and while people might cry that it's their right to wash down their trans fatty fries with a Supergulp Cola, they can all agree that they would like to not be shot to death. I would at this point ask why the right wing was almost universally opposed to both the bans in New York and the individual mandate in the healthcare legislation, both of which would save more lives by themselves than reducing gun violence. Aren't they interested in saving lives at all?

You bring up obesity. I'll get to that in a minute. I find it odd though that you chose to skip right over where rngr said:

And, within the subcategory of guns, the type that is being discussed are "semiautomatic assault rifles" which account for a grand total of 353 deaths a year. In the same year, 458 people died from incidents involving hammers...yes, framing hammers, from the hardware store.

And then go on to talk about manipulating statistics in another post:

Right. So people are manipulating statistics to say exactly what they want, in both cases. Certain elements of the British media are scaremongering, and the NRA is hijacking their story to say that the rates are so high because of the UK's gun control laws.

Hey, you want to see a place where it's really hard to legally get a gun? Japan! What do you suppose Tokyo's crime rate is? Oh, right. It's the safest city in the first world. Why don't the gun control laws cause a crime wave in Japan?

If you don't like manipulating, then don't do it.

But let's talk about Japan for a moment since you brought it up, as well as obesity, again, since you brought that up. In 2005 the US had a 30.6% obesity rate, opposed to Japan's rate of 3.2%. Obesity statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster To what do you attribute the wide variance in obesity rate? Has Japan implimented various bans or laws against obesity or food, or could it be that culture plays a part in that variance? When h0neymustard brought up culture you dismissed his point by claiming he was deflecting, when it was you that deflected:

Which has what exactly to do with the murder rate? Or the violent crime rate? This is an irrelevant and meaningless deflection.

I'm going to have to stand behind my original point:

I would love to see a rational response to this post. One that includes facts and logic instead of "guns are bad" or "why does anyone need an assault rifle." I'll bet all I own that we won't see it though.

Let me know if it happens.

 

[h0neymustard]

Which has what exactly to do with the murder rate? Or the violent crime rate? This is an irrelevant and meaningless deflection.

You missed some punctuation there. It's actually, "Liberal. Thinking." I could try to turn that around and say what it makes me think of you, but it's an unnecessary effort. Everyone already knows what a sock puppet you are.

Culture has no effect on murder rate? Funny, look at the urban culture we have and tell me that doesn't affect murder rates.

And I was contemplating editing it to "Liberal 'thinking'" because most of the drivel I see here is emotion driven.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

You're right, you can't just legislate problems like heart disease and cancer away. What you can do is legislate against known causes of these problems. Cigarettes certainly cause many deaths every year in the US, as does alcohol. If you want me to pull the statistics I will, but I think you can agree. Why is there no focus on these?

There is lots of focus on smoking cessation.
There are lots of bans on smoking in public places.
But to make cigarettes outright illegal would be too much of a compromise of people's free choices about their lives.
If someone wants to smoke and risk shortening their lives, I won't want to interfere.
However, while some guns are used to commit suicide, most deaths from guns involve killing people other than the shooter.
That case is very different.

If you don't like manipulating, then don't do it.

I can't see why you would speak of manipulation on JTalbain's part because he failed to respond to one part of RNGR's post. (There might be other points to make, though.)
That said, the point that weapons such as the AR-15 kill relatively few of the people who die through gunfire is a good one.
To attack the problem more frontally would involve banning handguns.
Would you be happier?

But let's talk about Japan for a moment since you brought it up, as well as obesity, again, since you brought that up. In 2005 the US had a 30.6% obesity rate, opposed to Japan's rate of 3.2%. Obesity statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster To what do you attribute the wide variance in obesity rate? Has Japan implemented various bans or laws against obesity or food, or could it be that culture plays a part in that variance? When h0neymustard brought up culture you dismissed his point by claiming he was deflecting, when it was you that deflected:

Which has what exactly to do with the murder rate? Or the violent crime rate? This is an irrelevant and meaningless deflection.​

To ask how a question is relevant is not really to deflect it.
That said, I agree with you that cultural influence is written all over the controversies over gun availability in the U.S.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

And I was contemplating editing it to "Liberal 'thinking'" because most of the drivel I see here is emotion driven.

On both sides, hm.
Both sides.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Fuzzy isn't sure why the right wants to believe that violent crime is on the rise in the UK other than to suit their agenda. Violent crime in the UK has decreased since the 1997 gun ban.

Well, the figures as presented appear to make that case.
But they have been compiled in ways that don't allow direct comparison with American figures.
I would like a recompilation to lay the issue to rest.
And while you're at it, please throw in a lottery win, chum.

Let's hope he makes it out of NYC alive. It's a war zone, after all. Apparently he had difficulty just getting to NYC:

Alex Jones: Radio host and conspiracy theorist 'detained by TSA agents ahead of his appearance on Piers Morgan

He reminds me of the late William Cooper (you know, the guy who wrote "Behold a Pale Horse").
They're both impassioned, oddly charismatic for certain audiences, and bonkers (Jones much less than Cooper, I'd say).
Jones wins no inch of ground by behaving in so infantile a way at the airport.
I don't think that most people who think like him are necessarily paranoid, but I believe he is a textbook case.

 

[balsary]

There is lots of focus on smoking cessation.
There are lots of bans on smoking in public places.
But to make cigarettes outright illegal would be too much of a compromise of people's free choices about their lives.
If someone wants to smoke and risk shortening their lives, I won't want to interfere.
However, while some guns are used to commit suicide, most deaths from guns involve killing people other than the shooter.
That case is very different.

And yet, most gun deaths are related to gang activity, drug activity, and suicide. These all involve killing (mostly) only criminals or those that choose to end their own life. How is banning law abiding citizens interested in protecting themselves, providing food for their family, providing protection for their livelihood, and enjoying a hobby from owning guns not a compromise of people's free choice about their lives. Every case where guns are used to commit violence against other human beings is already a crime. For what reason should mere ownership of a gun be a crime, especially ownership of a gun that is used in such a small percentage of killings?

I can't see why you would speak of manipulation on JTalbain's part because he failed to respond to one part of RNGR's post.
That said, the point that weapons such as the AR-15 kill relatively few of the people who die through gunfire is a good one.
To attack the problem more frontally would involve banning handguns.
Would you be happier?

Because he chose to skip over the major point rngr was making. Would I be happier if people were talking about banning handguns? No, but it would sure as hell make more sense. As it is, most people seem to be pushing for laws that will do nothing at all to stop gun violence.

To ask how a question is relevant is not really to deflect it.
That said, I agree with you that cultural influence is written all over the controversies over gun availability in the U.S.

But he didn't ask h0ney how his point was relevant, he stated that it was irrelevant as if it were fact.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

But he didn't ask h0ney how his point was relevant, he stated that it was irrelevant as if it were fact.

Well, he asked, "Which has what exactly to do with the murder rate? Or the violent crime rate?" So he asked about relevance.
And, true enough, he went on to state that culture was meaningless and irrelevant.

Out of time for today, folks. Have to grab my hat and run.

 

[balsary]

Well, he asked, "Which has what exactly to do with the murder rate? Or the violent crime rate?" So he asked about relevance.
And, true enough, he went on to state that culture was meaningless and irrelevant.

Out of time for today, folks. Have to grab my hat and run.

A barber that wears a hat? I've never heard of such a thing.

Have a good day sir.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

A barber that wears a hat? I've never heard of such a thing.

We have our bad hair days too, y'know.

 

[TheBestYouCan]

So why focus on firearms? Because it is a problem that can be directly targeted with legislation all?

How? What legislation, exactly, will solve, fix, or otherwise alleviate this problem?

It hasn't helped in a lot of places.. "(NYC)that city has roughly 37,000 licensed handgun owners and about 21,000 rifle and shotgun licenses, the running guesstimate of illegal firearms stands at two million, give or take a bit. That’s the number the U.S. Department of Justice has used in its official publications in recent years."


"The Small Arms Survey, a research outfit established by the Swiss government, the United Kingdom, with just shy of 1.8 million legal firearms, has about four million illegal guns. Belgium, with about 458,000 legal firearms, has roughly two million illegal guns. In Germany, the number is 7.2 million legal guns and between 17 and 20 million off-the-books examples of things that go “bang” (a figure with which the German Police Union very publicly agrees). France, says the Survey, has 15-17 million unlawful firearms in a nation where 2.8 million weapons are held in compliance with the law."

Generally, it seems the more restrictive gun laws become, the less they are complied with. You can read more here: Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets - Reason.com

So that begs the question... what CAN you do if anything to cut down on school massacres? There have been shootings at schools as far back as the 1700's, but they were generally spurned lovers killing their love interest and then themselves or accidents.. you didn't really see mass shootings until the 1900's... with the first massacre being in 1966 and not occurring again until 23 years later and the majority after that occurring after the Federal Gun Free Zone law was passed.

The University of Texas Massacre was committed with a sniper rifle.

The Cleveland School Massacre was carried out with an AK47 being fired into a playground from outside the school grounds. The perp has a history of mental illness and crime and was also armed with pistols.

Columbine was perpetrated by mentally disturbed individuals with semi-automatic pistols and shotguns (by which they committed several felony acts in modifying before even committing the shootings).

The 2006 Amish school shootings were carried about by a mentally disturbed individual with a hand gun.

Virginia Tech: Mentally disturbed, semi-auto hand guns used.

Sandy Hook: Mentally disturbed, reports differ whether it was the AR15 or pistols, but let's say AR15.

So the largest shootings have occurred with every type of gun imaginable, at schools where it's illegal to have a gun regardless if it's to protect yourself or to kill everyone. But in 1927 38 kids and 6 adults were killed with a car bomb in Michigan.

What's the lesson here? What can we learn? What I can take away from all of this is that disturbed people will do disturbing things regardless of you telling them they can't or where they can or cannot take weapons. They will use whatever weapons they can get or make to carry this out, and it doesn't matter if it's an "assault rifle" or a pistol, or a bolt action hunting rifle, or a car bomb, they are going to try to kill people; unarmed people with no chance of defending themselves. So is the solution to disarm more people for those who will arm themselves anyway to kill? Or is there another solution?

 

[h0neymustard]

Piers Morgan's Anti-gun Argument Destroyed in Reality Check - YouTube