Gun Controls or Criminal Controls !
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0
Eric Holder seems to think we need an ankle bracelet to even use a gun and be able to stop crime in America ? And yet , he can't even control his ! He, is the one that needs an ankle bracelet !Ahorseback is referring to Fast and Furious. It's a good point.
It would probably be more helpful to make everyone paroled or who crosses the borders illegally to wear a bracelet, can you imagine the outrage.
This post might make sense if any of it was true. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder or anyone else in the administration is proposing anything more than background checks - which are supported by 92% of the American people.
Also nobody gave or sold guns to criminals in Mexico. Fast and Furious simply monitored the sale of guns to straw buyers in order to track the flow of guns to criminals.On the contrary, Eric Holder is proposing a bracelet system:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … eapon.htmlNowhere in either the text or the video does anyone propose a bracelet system. The term used was "explore", which I would hope all our representatives would do before either proposing or voting for a law. Explore the potentials, probable/possible results, etc. Look hard, in other words, at what it is, what it would cost, what can be done with it, and what we expect to happen if a bracelet system were required.
One of the first things they need to explore is whether such a law is even justified. How many guns are used against their owners? Is there really a crisis, or is this just another liberal excuse to gain a foothold in regulating our rights? (After all, those proposing such laws are always gun-hating liberals, like Obama and Eric Holder!)
No argument there at all, though I would include how many stolen guns are used in commission of a crime and how many of those are used to murder with. And when it is all compiled, how much can we hope to reduce the body count by? I suspect it is near zero, as with all gun control schemes.
Again, when a known gun-hater like Eric Holder is proposing something to 'help' gun owners, our suspicions ought to be on high alert.
I, for one, don't want to have to count on a battery powered electronic device functioning properly when my life or that of my family is in danger. And, since I would not want to sleep with a bracelet on my wrist, that's one more thing I'd have to accomplish if I heard a window break in the middle of the night. No thank you.Oh, I've pretty much given up. Within 50 years there will be no privately owned guns in the US. I just hope it is the other side of my grave, and fight to educate people towards that end.
Self protection in the home; if I have time to open the safe and load the gun, I have time to slide a bracelet on.
Do you remember how quickly the after-market "fixers" came up with the hack to unlock the original "locked" iPhones?
I wonder if the "intelligent" bracelet-dependent guns would have a "hack" available just as quickly?
Hmm... might not do much for disabling those stolen guns after all.
Just Sayin'
GAAbsolutely a major problem that would HAVE to be addressed to make the system worthwhile.
They ship illegal citizens to us, we ship illegal guns to them.
A fair trade, isn't it?The Democrats have been hell-bent on disarming America for years. That is indisputable. The question is why, when 99.998% of legally owned guns will never be used in a crime. What is their real motive?
To disarm American citizens - what else could it be?
Besides, more than a few politicians are already trying to do just that. Several have "tested the waters", talking up making virtually all guns illegal, confiscating all weapons, etc. It hasn't worked yet, but it will - the very idea of an armed populace is abhorrent to big government.
I actually think this is about the bracelet gun owners will need that will have a wireless link with their guns. Unless they have the bracelet they won't be able to shoot their gun. It was on the news yesterday.
It's only fair that the Government gets rid of their guns in order for the people to get rid of their guns. Fight fire with fire or get rid of guns all together, the public do not not want to be defenseless.
War dose not solved anything, "Alexander the Great"You're advocating total disarmament? I'm sure Putin would agree that this would be a great policy. . .for America only.
That's creepy. 1984 ish to me.
I really hate this idea.Not at all - the bracelets are nothing more than a positive identification of the owner; without it a stolen or lost gun won't fire. Bracelets, rings, even implanted chips (which I would not support) have all been looked at along with other forms of telling the gun "It's me, you can safely shoot.".
Maybe I read too much sci fi:)
This is how it starts....Oh, I'm a BIG Sci Fi fan myself.
But, for instance, I carry a "key fob" remote thingie in my pocket for my Toyota Prius. The car sees that and unlocks the doors when I reach for the handle. The engine starts because I push the "start" button with the fob in my pocket. Same thing with the bracelet; the car knows I'm me and so does the gun, all because I'm carrying a transmitter that says so.What if, say, you had a home invasion and your wife or someone else needed to use your gun. And couldn't due to the bracelet?
You can either keep the bracelet with the gun (and a thief gets both) or she couldn't use it. Unless she also knew where it was - in HER jewelry case maybe? I don't see such schemes as producing a weapon reasonable to use in case of a home invasion, unless an implanted chip is used and I don't really care for that idea.
At the same time, I don't see a gun as being useful for a home invasion in all but a minute number of cases; there aren't many home invasions where the home owner has time to open the safe and most gun owners aren't "killer" enough to shoot someone anyway.Or maybe they can set it up somehow so that more than one family member has a bracelet. That should be easy enough.
I'm sure it could - my Prius can recognize any of 4 different fobs and the gun should be no different. Security is lost with each additional code, though - add too many and you may as well not have it at all.
The New York Times ran an article bashing NRA statements. They wrote:
"A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that 'for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.' That comes to an annual average of 67,740— not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million."
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 … s&_r=0
In its attempt to diminish statements made by the NRA, I feel that the New York Times really illustrated how often Americans protect themselves with guns, over 67,000 times per year on average.
IF 67,740 times isn't much, then what do we call 11,078, nothing? Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010?
Does "criminal control" mean the first murder is free? Because most of the people who have gone on rampages had no criminal record.
Oh, the hyperbole!
Democrats want to disarm America? While I'm sure that there are some democrats who would like to outlaw guns, most just want to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Perhaps they go to far trying to find a solution, but is it really wrong to want to keep guns out of the hands of people with a violent criminal record by making them go through a simple background check?
Is there any kind of gun control gun owners would support?Not as concern about criminals as I am with Authorities. More concern about a person with a gun than a person who has not.
Why can't America's learn from much safer Countries who do not allow guns altogether, for Police or for the Public.Why do I ask these question, when I know the correct answer.
Why can't you? Having fewer guns does not translate into fewer homicides.
The problem with getting rid of guns altogether has a many faceted answer. First off the constitution specifically address' arms being something a citizen can hold. Whether you argue it was meant as a militia readiness issue or for personal protection it is in the Constitution. Secondly the right has been with us for over two hundred years and as a result it is a part of our culture. No other country exercises the rights and freedoms of gun ownership as much as the US and is therefore one of our most recognizable traits. I lived overseas for a few years and a few of the locals asked me if I owned a machine gun. Thirdly with the criminal law system set up the way it is and the overcrowding of prisons gun crime is hard to be strict on. It used to carry a mandatory five year conviction if you used a gun in the commission of a felony. So what is the answer? With a disputed number as high as 20,000 gun laws there is a precedence that has fallen far short of the objective of eliminating gun crimes. Who is responsible for the abuse of a gun being used in a criminal act? And why should the perpetrator be given such a broad consideration of his rights including freedom when a victims right is to recover or die? Your suggestion of eliminating guns only feeds the criminal the ammunition he needs to exploit those who would lawfully disarm. To disarm is like saying there will be no more sugar sold to combat all the negative affects it has on the human body. No more diabetes, tooth decay, moonshine etc......... The only answer I can come up with is to prosecute to the most stringent ability of the law to convict and incarcerate anyone who possess' a gun while committing a crime, planning a crime, or even going to someone else's house to argue while possessing or having a gun in the car. Make the person pay dearly for even considering using a gun to make a point or confrontation any more than a discussion. Any more than a discussion call a cop!
How about if we quit whining and crying about a subset of criminal activity (the specific tool used) and put our efforts into finding why our society is so violent, so prone to criminal activities, and put a stop to it?
If we do that, we'll not only stop gun crime, we'll stop the crime that would have occurred if we took the guns away.What you are talking about is way beyond the scope of the powers that be to decipher. Some would point to the violent video games our kids play or the violence that we all watch on television or the heartless killing of innocents we read about in the newspapers. Do we need a censor to regulate the amount of hours or specific acts we can subject ourselves or our children too? Is there to be disclaimers before every act about to be witnessed that viewing it could be detrimental to your psyche or others well being so be advised? What liberal think tank could you employ to make us feel good about ourselves and others as they examine what makes us act out on each other? The whole thing comes down to convincing someone that if they choose to use a gun to either settle or threaten another there are severe repercussions for your actions. So severe that it is not worth it. Look how well the clamping down of drunk driving has worked over the years when those even in the throws of addiction even think twice before getting behind the wheel drunk. Drunk driving has been cut in half since 1980 when MADD began. The answer has been severe penalties for those who break the law to effect any change. Will stricter enforcement eliminate gun violence but half way is a start.
If it is beyond the scope of the powers that be to decipher, then all is lost for certainly even confiscating all the guns in the country will not lower the violence rate one iota. The rest of the world has proven that beyond any doubt.
The difference with DUI is not the heavier penalties (although they help) it is a change in the mindset of the man in the street. Most people find drunk driving unacceptable now, and will neither participate nor condone such actions. It is the change in mindset that has resulted in the reduced death rate, not primarily heavier penalties.The need to decipher and regulate guns is a wasteful task. We have guns and we will continue to have guns even if made illegal to own them. There are too many out there and the criminal element will always be able to obtain them. What has to happen is a personal; commitment on the gun owners mind that they should always know where their weapons are and if they are safe from thieves or others that would be able to take them. On the governments end it should be a mindset of vigorous prosecution and unwavering prison time against plea bargaining when a gun charge is leveled against those that have done illegal acts using one. As far as the mindset that has taken over drunk driving I will give you a thought that there were more against the drunk driving than those for it and the fight was one sided. But as you said a mindset was set, and mostly the courts were forced to heavily prosecute those offenders and I believe it could be sustainable for gun offenders as well.
You speak as if guns are a problem, but they aren't. Gun violence is high, yes, but if it weren't guns it would be something else - guns are nothing but a handy tool for the violence-oriented among us.
No, the problem is the violence in our society, not the chosen tool used. And the solution is NOT going to be found by eliminating and certainly not by limiting that tool to criminal usage. The solution is to change the mindset that allows violence as necessary or desirable. Only when that concept is driven out will the violence cease. Gun control/regulation is nothing but a red herring that politicians and citizens jump on as a quick easy solution, but it will never accomplish anything. Just make us all feel better, until the next massacre happens.Who's talking about gun control? I am talking about the acts that are created using guns. Guns are a convenient way for people to act out on others. It is the simplest way to kill someone. Even a knife requires a lot of anger and personal commitment to kill someone. So the focus is on the simplest way to commit an act of violence. So if you remove the ease by which someone overcomes the moral implications then you create a conciseness to begin the change. Removing the gun doesn't change someone's desire to kill another but knowing that the consequences to be so severe may give them enough pause to think. I know if someone wants to kill another there is little that can be done but something has to interrupt the thought process to begin a change.
YOU are talking about gun controls ("The only answer I can come up with is to prosecute to the most stringent ability of the law to convict and incarcerate anyone who possess' a gun while committing a crime, planning a crime, or even going to someone else's house to argue while possessing or having a gun in the car."). And no, the statistics very plainly show that taking away the gun (the easy way to kill) doesn't reduce the number of killings even a tiny bit. It doesn't give someone pause to think and it doesn't create a conciseness to begin the change. It takes guns away from people, that's all. You are trying to approach a considered solution backwards (and without even knowing if it IS a solution) and it won't work.
I am not talking about gun controls at all. Somehow you think that for doing something wrong you should not be punished if a gun is involved. My ONLY contention is that if you choose to commit a murder, holdup or any other crime while using a handgun you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. There are over 20,00 laws on the books so why not use them instead of making up anymore that we will ignore anyway? There IS a distinction you can't seem to grasp. Gun control legislation would involve restricting and limiting law biding citizens in their purchase, use or protection. I am far from advocating that. ("The only answer I can come up with is to prosecute to the most stringent ability of the law to convict and incarcerate anyone who possess' a gun while committing a crime, planning a crime, or even going to someone else's house to argue while possessing or having a gun in the car."). has no connotation in it whatsoever of any sort of gun control. It does modify that if you commit a crime while USING a handgun then you the person in control of the weapon at the time should be held accountable. Not something that can be plea bargained away for a lesser sentence. And yes keeping a handgun out of somebodies hand or the threat of serious prosecution will keep someone hell bent to commit a crime from doing so. As I said a gun is the most expedient way to get others attention and respect when you wish to rob or threaten them. But someone going over to their ex's house to straighten them out or collecting money from a deadbeat may think about it twice if they wish to do so with a gun in their car (just in case). If you can't understand this then I can't help you.
And my point is that it isn't the gun doing the damage to society (or the corpse, for that matter).
So forget about extra punishment for gun-wielding criminals; simply prosecute to the fullest, including any additional penalties that would come from the use of a gun. Whether a gun was present or not.
Forget about the guns - stop the violence. And if you refuse to understand (not can't, but won't) that guns are not the problem I can't help you. You continue to devote resources and work towards controlling what tool a killer uses, but the killer remains with or without their tools. Still killing, too, no matter what you take from them.Your thinking on this is so linear it defies logic. I have stated it over and over again but you refuse to grasp the concept. The gun does not commit the crime. Agreed! The tool as you describe it makes it easy to accomplish the task, murder in this case. With it being so easy to acquire, use and reconcile (no worry of prosecution), then take away the third element is all I am saying. You think there is no thought process in a killers mind? Me want go kill is all the killer is thinking of? There is no premeditation? No covering their tracks or setting up alibi's? Just seek, kill and run is all that is on a killers mind? All murders are an act of passion under your definition of gun violence? The killer was so incensed that the whole concept of getting away with it is not even in the mix? You have a ridiculous argument if you think you can make a one size fits all estimation of how to stop the violence if it does not include some repercussions for the misuse of a gun.
"With it being so easy to acquire, use and reconcile (no worry of prosecution), then take away the third element is all I am saying." Your mind is so one track it defeats me. I will try just one more time and give it up - there is no reason to speak to someone with closed ears (or mind).
The gun is not the problem. It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is to get a gun (or any other weapon). Statistics the world over very plainly show (to those that will look) that gun ownership does NOT have any affect on homicide rates. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. One does not have any affect on the other.
So when you decide that a killer will think twice before killing with any other tool, facts and figures belie the notion. For whatever reason, whether you believe it or not, or can understand the criminal mind or not, it doesn't matter. A killer will kill, whether with a knife, his boots and hands or a gun. A pipe bomb, a speeding car, a car bomb or a plane. A killer kills, and all the gun laws in the world have exactly zero effect on that no matter how many reasons you come with that show it should not be true. No matter how little you understand, no matter how hard you make it to get a gun or how much you punish gun users the killing will continue until we finally address the root of the problem - that violence is not only OK but actually glorified in the US.
Now, I would never deny that taking guns away, putting massive penalties on guns use, or scaring the socks of everyone in sight of a gun will reduce gun homicides. It just won't reduce homicides at all, which would be MY goal. Now if YOUR goal is to reduce gun violence while keeping the overall level the same (turning killers to other weapons, in other words) then your methodology will likely work. The dead won't care, though, and neither will the loved ones left behind.Your mind is so one track it defeats me. I will try just one more time and give it up - there is no reason to speak to someone with closed ears (or mind). Ditto for you
The gun is not the problem. It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is to get a gun (or any other weapon). Totally agreeing with you on this. Statistics the world over very plainly show (to those that will look) that gun ownership does NOT have any affect on homicide rates. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. One does not have any affect on the other. I agree with you on this as well. What you fail to understand your reference is for law abiding gun ownership. My reference is to the criminal element. So if a criminal has access to a gun then it makes his crime that much easier to execute. You make no distinction between the two. Agreed if a person is inclined to commit a murder with a gun then there is nothing including jail time or execution that will stop him. But what about the guy who sold him the gun? Or stole it and gave it to him? Or if he stole the gun and it was caught on him prior to anything happening? None of your logic address' this. If the criminal and his accomplices are prosecuted by any of the 20,000 laws I mentioned to their fullest extent are you saying that would have no effect?
So when you decide that a killer will think twice before killing with any other tool, facts and figures belie the notion. Except when he is caught in the process and prosecuted for his intent. ie. showing up to an argument or collecting a debt with a gun. Did he go there to commit the murder or did it just happen? His intent was clearly to have the gun as a threat or protection. For whatever reason, whether you believe it or not, or can understand the criminal mind or not, it doesn't matter. A killer will kill, whether with a knife, his boots and hands or a gun. A pipe bomb, a speeding car, a car bomb or a plane. A killer kills, and all the gun laws in the world have exactly zero effect on that no matter how many reasons you come with that show it should not be true. I absolutely agree with this. But if in the course of events the killer is stopped and all who helped whether through purchasing the gun or stealing it and selling it to him were prosecuted very harshly it would no doubt at least stop the crime and make the others pause before they considered it again. No matter how little you understand, do we need to start with the insults as I have held mine in check to try and reason with you. no matter how hard you make it to get a gun or how much you punish gun users No one is trying to make it hard for a law abiding citizen to get or use a gun in my argument. the killing will continue until we finally address the root of the problem - that violence is not only OK but actually glorified in the US. I totally agree!
Now, I would never deny that taking guns away, putting massive penalties on guns use, or scaring the socks of everyone in sight of a gun will reduce gun homicides. It just won't reduce homicides at all, In your opinion which would be MY goal. Mine too! Now if YOUR goal is to reduce gun violence while keeping the overall level the same (turning killers to other weapons, in other words) then your methodology will likely work. Once again you make no distinction between the purpose motivated criminal and the law abiding citizen as they are all the hopeless killer unable to make a moral decision of killing another. The dead won't care, though, and neither will the loved ones left behind. Once again no distinction and therefore one size fits all."None of your logic address' this"
Therein lies the problem. I am not presenting any "logic" at all, just facts and statistics. You keep trying to come up with reasons the statistics are wrong, that they lie, but it doesn't wash. Saying that you can scare criminals into not using a gun may be true (or may not - you fail to make your case there) but it is also totally irrelevant as experience very clearly shows that without guns the killing goes right on.
The crime may be easier, in other words, but it will be done with or without the gun. And you can claim until Hell freezes over that that isn't true, that it WILL make a difference, but experience the world over proves you wrong.
"do we need to start with the insults as I have held mine in check to try and reason with you" No insult intended; neither you nor I can truly get into the mind of the killer and understand why (s)he is doing it. Insanity rules there, in a very real sense of the word, and neither of us can empathize much. Nevertheless, we NEED to understand it (as a society) in order to stop it.
" Once again no distinction and therefore one size fits all." You are correct; no distinction at all between killing with a knife, hands or a gun. And the reason is the neither the deceased nor the survivors care one iota what tool was used and because falsely claiming that stopping crime using one tool will reduce overall crime. For the last time, and I promise I won't tell you this again, stopping gun crime cold in it's tracks will not reduce the overall homicide rate even 1/10 of a percentage point. They body count will NOT be reduced, the number of grieving relatives will NOT go down. All of your logic, all of you reasons, all of your claims; it all pales into nothing in the face of global experience plainly showing that gun violence is not the problem; violence is, and addressing gun violence alone will help no one (except those with an irrational fear of guns). Reduce gun crime, stop gun crime completely; it doesn't matter as neither one will reduce the killing at all. Spend the next 10 years convincing criminals how stupid it is to carry a gun to a crime and you will have accomplished absolutely nothing; the bodies will still be there, still piling ever deeper.We are making two different points and trying to have any agreement is impossible. You claim to have some knowledge (based on whatever facts you have) while there are other studies that counter your "facts". I have seen you make this argument with others and your inflexibility to discuss beyond your "facts" is a detriment to any plausible way of addressing the way of bettering the situation. So I guess we will have to continue trying to find a way to make society less violent with the connection between the gun and ease of which they can be obtained and used to commit violence on each other unaddressed. Your journey to the impossible dream of changing this society to a less violent one will continue to be a chasing of windmills. Good luck my friend.
Yes, I claim knowledge, and it is clearly laid out with sources, graphs and reasonable conclusions in a hub listed on my carousel. No, there are no other studies that show a correlation between gun ownership and the homicide rate, at least that I've found. And not a single person has refuted the data OR the conclusion in the hub, either. A few ignore it and pretend it isn't there, but it remains valid, without a shred of evidence to the contrary.
You are correct; there is no reason to try and address a non-existent connection (guns and the causes of violence in the US). Perhaps it IS an impossible dream, although I hope not, but I do know that removing or limiting second amendment rights in a gut reaction to horror stories will not solve (or even address) it either. Just remove more freedoms from our people while letting the bodies pile.
When you have decided to actually research the supposed connection between guns and causes of homicides, let me know. I would be extremely interested in what you find, whether positive, negative or balanced. Until then, playing logic games with hypothesis that are known to be untrue are not of much value to either society or me.I can't help you so run your logic anyway you wish.
A not unexpected response. A great many people, and on a consistent basis. refuse to look at data or conclusions that do not support their preconceived notions of reality. If it doesn't agree with what they wish to believe then it is to be ignored - in this case the desire is for all to agree that iron causes extreme violence in the US and must thus be heavily regulated and, if possible, removed from society entirely.
Take heart, though - you have a great many that will shake your hand and pat your back for that refusal. It is not something that the man in the street wishes to acknowledge and of course with enough people screaming it loudly enough, why, it MUST be false!
I am still sorry I cannot help you. Maybe somebody with better writing skills than mine can explain what it is you don't get about it. By the way I have read your Hub on the subject and I must say you have very effectively avoided the CDC and US Bar Associations take on the subject. Guns are the preferred weapon of choice to commit a murder and having had a gun pulled on me and used a gun to protect myself I have to side with their findings.
And, of course, you continue to avoid the subject.
Yes, guns are the preferred tool. But that has nothing to do with the homicide rate, as very plainly shown in the graphs and data in the hub. You simply refuse to accept that not-so-little fact, pretending that the tool makes the difference while the experience of the entire world belies the idea.
You don't want to accept it, I certainly cannot force you to. You wish to pretend that gun laws will reduce the carnage, that is your choice. And undoubtedly when it doesn't work you will want MORE useless gun restrictions - it's what we've done, in our ignorance and denial, for years.
I hear exactly what you are saying and agree with it. Gun control will work about as well as this sign does.Your evidence does not clearly prove that if guns were restricted that there would be no reduction of violence. It could not possibly do that. As referenced earlier the weapon of choice is clearly a gun and nothing you have provided in your Hub nor in any of your arguments makes a case that if a gun was not available to the murderer and if it was not, that he would commit the crime anyway with a knife or blunt object. The ease and availability of using a gun is not even measurable therefore your argument is useless. Also in the case here in the US with the plethora of availability of guns there is no study that measures the violence minus the gun. What you clearly have shown is that people will kill no matter what if they are so inclined. What it does not show is those that wish to commit the crime minus a gun decide to drop it as being too risky to get caught or the confrontation without a gun is too risky of being hurt themselves. Your data is flawed and so is your argument.
Really? Then you failed to understand what the data says.
There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, anywhere in the world.
That's pretty plain, and the data, hub and graphs all make it simple to understand. Here, let me say it again - you cannot predict homicide rates based on the number of guns in a society as there is no correlation between the two. This means that your first statement, that a claim that if guns were restricted that there would be no reduction of violence is not necessarily true; it ALSO means that a claim that if guns were restricted there would be a reduction in the homicide rate is just as untrue. We don't know what would happen, except that whatever it is any reduction in the homicide rate won't be a result of removing guns.
You claim that the hub does not show that removing guns shows murders will be done by some other method, but you must not have read it all. The prime example, well laid out and explained, was when Australia did just that; removed a massive number of guns from society. And the homicide rate did not change any significant amount for over ten years - pretty plain that the two were not connected, and doubly so as other actions were taken in the 10 years. So yes, the hub very plainly shows that removing guns will NOT result in a reduction in homicides. There is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate
We can also look at Canada for an indication (not proof), where the choice is blunt objects, whether bats, hands, feet or hammers. The homicide rate for that subset is far greater than in the US; much fewer guns in Canada, so use a bludgeon. Not proof, but pretty strong evidence; evidence you apparently missed in your in depth study of the hub.
Sorry, rhamson; no correlation between guns and homicide rates absolutely means that the number of guns available has nothing to do with the homicide rate. That's what it says, not that if we take the guns away, or make them harder to get, that the lower number of guns will produce lower numbers of homicides. No, it says, in spite of your claim otherwise, that the number of guns has no effect on the number of homicides. It takes a correlation to make the claim you are making, but there is none. No correlation means no causal effect, which absolutely means that guns are NOT the cause of the high homicide rate in the US even though it is the preferred tool. No causal effect in turn means that taking the guns away will NOT change the murder rate. And if you cannot follow that logic, plain and simple logic, I cannot help further
No correlation = no causal effect = removing guns does not change the murder rate. Very simple, actually.What your data fails to address is the number of homicide's that were perpetrated in lieu of a gun. How many homicides were not carried out because a gun was not available? How many repeat felons secured a gun against their parole or did not because a knife or bat was too personal? How many homicide's were committed by other means because a gun was able to be traced back to the perpetrator? How many homicide's were committed between a gun owner and their spouse in the heat of an argument? How many homicide's were committed by another to frame an enemy? The list goes on and on. Your data is raw and does not prove that a gun was a far easier and quicker way and therefore used. In Australia the data clearly shows a murderous pattern but does not show that as the population grew there was no reduction in homicide's in lieu or gun use but because less homicide's were committed by guns as a result of the ban. You can run all the studies and graph's you want but the fact remains that if people want to murder they will. But if it is made more difficult or less expedient because of the scarcity of their weapon of choice less will in fact commit murder. Your NRA based bulls#$t is just that.
What you don't get is that I am in favor of gun ownership and in fact have owned guns in the past. I am not for taking away anybody's weapon if they lawfully may own one. What I am in favor of is punishing the unlawful ownership and use of one that taints the reputation and rights of those that wish to own and use one.The data absolutely DOES address the number of homicides perpetrated in lieu of a gun. It says that it doesn't matter if a gun is there or not, the murder will happen. If homicides were not carried out because no gun as available, then the homicide rate would drop will falling gun ownership rates, but it does not. Therefore, there were no significant numbers of homicides that did not happen because of lack of a gun. And all that list amounts to the same thing; without a firm correlation you cannot (truthfully) make the claim that lack of guns results in fewer homicides.
You are incorrect in the Australia matter; the question is not how many gun homicides were committed before and after the collection of guns, but how many homicides were committed before and after. And the answer is the same number; taking away those tens of thousands of firearms did not alter the body count at all, making a very clear statement that collecting them was a useless act in terms of saving lives. This is a common misdirection by the anti gun crowd; "Take the guns and the (gun) homicide rate falls!". A true statement, but it also scurries around the corner, ignoring what happens to the total homicide rate - a rate which shows no change when the guns are removed from society.
Actually, I DO get that you are a "gun nut", just as I am. But you are also more than happy to continually put more barriers in the path of people owning guns, to no effect. You are more than happy to waste resources and jail space punishing gun owners that commit crimes, to no effect. You are quite happy to devote all our efforts (and costs) to getting guns out of society (except "lawful" owners) instead of putting those efforts and finances into attacking the huge problem of violence in the US, all to no effect. All your efforts and money will come to nothing; will not save one life, will not reduce the homicide rate, will not change the violence in our country at all. And that is both wasteful and disgusting as you will intentionally stand by and do nothing while thousands of innocent people are murdered each year in this country.
So what other facets of our society might be a cause? What can we look at? Guns are not causal to homicides; what else might be?
What about TV/movie violence? Sports violence (boxing, football, hockey, the screaming popularity of MMA)? Low penalties in general, as we mostly look the other way? Electronic games? Does NOT letting our kids fight it out on the street, and never learn the consequences of violence, add to the homicide rate?
I can't speak to any of those, but I can throw an unexpected one at you. When prohibition was instituted the homicide rate made a huge jump. And when it was removed the rate immediately saw a huge decrease. When we instituted our "war on drugs", the homicide rate showed a jump, and as we have relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws it has showed a decrease. So, purely from a homicide viewpoint, should we end all marijuana prohibitions? Will allowing/encouraging 5 million people to become voluntary vegetables save a thousand lives and is it a reasonable return? Coupled with other reasons, I would support complete freedom for pot heads to grow and use as they wish, knowing there will be a high social cost but willing to pay that cost in the hopes of saving lives. Would you?We are on the same course but you claim a different direction is needed rather than the one that gets us there the quickest. Statistics are only as good as those that interpret them. Just like in a election poll there are indicators that something is happening a certain way does not make it so as evidenced by a totally different result.
I gave all the instances time and time again with no reply from you about their validity. You just drone on about the same statement and accept that the statistics don't lie when in fact they are not complete enough to eliminate the possibilities of some other things that can be done in conjunction with the results. Its kind of like making beef stew with violence being the beef. If you reduce the amount of beef is it still beef stew? Yes but it changes the flavor.
I am not a gun nut as I haven't owned a gun in nearly thirty years. I just did not want the responsibility of them in the house with teenage boys and have never felt the need for them since. I do respect another's right to have them under he Constitution. Your linear approach is guided by your desire and fear of anything happening to your right to own firearms no matter the logic. I on the other hand am open to any and all ideas that will curb the violence including removing the weapon from those that would misuse it and harm others. You however wish to effect some societal change that with 300 million plus people in a culture that is run by result driven advertising and marketing that glorifies and capitalizes on violence as a result to continue profits. Good luck with your dream.No, I wish to see a path different than one that will fail, as evidenced by the experience of every other country in the world.
Statistics lie, yes, when they are spun and twisted. They do not lie when true and unspun; I believe the stats presented in the hub to be true and factual to the best of the ability of those that gathered them. If you can use them to produce any conclusion other than there is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate I would be very interested in seeing it. If you can refute that statement, with this data or other, I would be extremely interested in seeing that.
But so far, all you have produced is opinion that the statement is wrong. You produce no data, you produce no information or experience, just opinion statements that it must be wrong because you don't think it is right. Very simply put, you will have to do better than that.
It is true that "gun nut" probably exaggerates for both of us. You own no weapons, but wish to allow others to own them, if they follow hundreds of rules you mistakenly think will reduce the murder rate. I own one, my father's old hunting rifle from 50 years ago, that I have shot once in my life. So "gun nut" is probably not the best term, but then all is relative and to the gun haters of the country we are both "gun nuts" in the extreme.Your take to not delve into a combination of some gun adjustments and societal engineering to find a solution is too all or nothing for me. The reason I don't trust your statistics is because there are statistics that counter your claims and provide the opposite take on the statistics that you claim as proof. Is it a liberal study? Probably, but your statistics are from conservative based studies that are refuted from the other side. So who is right and the argument continues with nothing getting done. No compromise means no solution.
There are statistics that show a correlation between the number of guns and the overall homicide rate in a country? Link please? Because I would surely like to see that - the figures I came up were flat out amazing and counter-intuitive to me.
They are what they are, though, and until something else comes along they have to be believed. At least by those interested in truth instead of made up answers without a basis in reality.The rate of homicides involving a firearm decreased by 49% from 1992 to 2011, while the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
Gun homicides by juveniles have nearly tripled since 1983, while
homicides involving other weapons have actually declined.
http://www.ojjdp.gov/action/sec3.htm
New study by Boston Children's Hospital finds that tougher laws on guns can have an effect on homicide and suicide rates
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … o/1969227/
Have fun.Well done! I wondered how long it would take you to start listing statistics of gun homicides while pretending they are homicides in general.
I've made that point very clear - that it is a common tactic of the anti-gun crowd to refuse to talk about homicide rates but instead only talk about gun homicides. Because, of course, when homicides in general are considered, the body count doesn't change with gun reductions. Take away the guns and the killers use something else; an inescapable conclusion when the body count does not fall.
As far as your link to the Boston Children's Hospital study, the very first sentence says "States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children's Hospital." A little later we see "Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths, said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator". Further down: "The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower...". And "Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people.". followed by "The study also found that laws requiring universal background checks and permits to purchase firearms were most clearly associated with decreasing rates of gun-related homicides]/b] ". (bolding added throughout)
Are you catching the pattern here? A refusal to discuss homicide rates in general, in order to pretend that a lowering of [b]gun related homicides translates into a lowering of homicide rates in general? A very clear lie by omission, and a further effort (made clear in the article) to restrict gun ownership which will not change the homicide rate. And a pattern you have now joined, talking about gun homicides as if they mean that fewer guns/more restrictions means fewer deaths - something you now know is not true. The biggest single question with an article like that (and they are very common) is why no one ever questions what the data actually means. You have, for instance, claimed my data doesn't support the conclusion, but here you obviously think that data showing fewer gun homicides is relevant to the total homicidal body count even after examining hard numbers that prove differently. Because it doesn't support additional gun controls so musn't be talked about?
So, back to my request; you have stated there are studies that show a correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership/restrictions. Can you provide a link to one or two? Because I would love to see such data.
That's a good one! This is just a waste of time. I showed you where you have been misled and you pick at definitions. The guns are a part of the problem and you refuse to admit it. Good luck with changing the American culture without addressing this key element. Oh and if you wish you can say you won your point but it is a useless one at best.I very much fear you are correct. The fear mongers, spreading the idea that a chunk of iron is the cause of our high homicide rate because of their own fears, will never stop and they have a very loud voice. Just like here, with you shouting down the obvious, pretending that gun homicides equate to homicides in general, those that hate guns don't need a reason to get rid of them.
And so it goes, with the bodies piling and the 2nd amendment (and freedom in general) being eroded to no purpose and for no reason other that an irrational fear of an iron tool.
(If you want truth, look up those referenced studies and find the overall homicide rate for the areas being discussed. Compare and see just how much gun control has helped. But of course, it isn't worth the effort is it? You might find that guns aren't the cause after all, and then what? Can't promote gun controls then!)What is the largest part of the problem, violent people? Shouldn't we spend the majority of our effort correcting the behavior rather than getting rid of a tool? If we don't, the tool will be replaced. The best we could hope for then is that criminals are less successful with lesser tools. That's not really a solution.
Yes it is a solution. A solution that placates and soothes those that fear guns, and that ALSO (and much more important), convinces those same fearful souls that the politician has their best interests at heart. And it is a self perpetuating solution, at least for the forseeable future; as we take away some guns, nothing happens and we take away some more. The politician playing stupid remains in office, the citizen remains calm because something is being done.
So yes, it is a solution and a very good one. Just not a solution to the violence or murder rate.One question and I will leave you to your thoughts. In all of your statistics does it show that if a person wished to commit a homicide and there was no gun available, would they still commit the crime? Its not as easy as saying they would just use another implement instead as your statistics would suggest. Yes if they wanted to kill the person badly enough they would find other means. But does the gun facilitate an instant gratification and if not available does the person drop it. And if so how many situations does this represent?
I'm sorry, statistics do not apply to a single individual, so no, they do not show what a madman wanting to kill will do.
They DO plainly show that there is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate - what this means is that if the guns are removed from society, (perhaps as was done in Australia) the homicide rate does not drop. If we could predict it would drop there would be a correlation, but there is not. Now, you may decide that those people wanting to use a gun won't kill at all, while someone else steps up and performs the kill FOR them, you may decide that knives and bats jumped off the ground by themselves and stabbed or bludgeoned, you can decide any number of silly things.
As for me, I will decide that the person wanting to kill with a gun will use a different implement if the gun is not available. I make that conclusions because someone is still doing the killing (remember statistics cannot predict what a specific individual will do) and it seems reasonable to think it is the killer that wanted a gun but can't find one. True, it does not matter which individual is doing the stabbing - frustrated gunman or someone else - but if we simply MUST assign a person then it's probably the gunman.
Statistics cannot say whether a gun provides instant gratification or not (as if that has something to do with body count) but it CAN say that if the gratification of gun use is missing the killing continues by someone. It also cannot say how many situations conforms to the gratification theory, but it CAN say it doesn't matter because the killing continues without guns and all the psychological theories in the world do not change that acknowledged fact. Your theories may provide a reason for it, if you would try, but as long as you try to find theories why it won't happen, as you watch it happen anyway, you will fail.
So what is with the continual insistence that removing guns will stop murders? We've both seen the numbers, we both understand it doesn't happen that way no matter what rationalization you give to predict it will. The murders continue with or without the gun and you cannot simply pretend to find reasons it won't happen. You cannot find reasons an individual will or will not act and apply it to a group setting, particularly when we already know what the group as a whole will do. As in kill.And as plainly as you have identified reasoning other than your own as "silly" you will fail to find an end to the violence. To consider any idea or thought "silly" is defeating the conversation and therefore setting up barriers to a logical conclusion. I am sorry you are so tied to the nuts and bolts of the situation and not in touch with the humanity that runs the problem. Therefore you will fail in your endeavors to even make a dent in the problem and all your statistical knowledge is for nothing. If anyone attacks a problem with a negative only a negative will result. As I said good luck with your machine like approach to the problem.
No, to my knowledge, there isn't a way to prove that people would or wouldn't find an alternate means to commit the same violent crime. Do you believe that criminals would simply stop because they didn't have a gun? I don't believe that for a second.
There is, however, a way to prove that criminals are deterred by people who are armed.
A Duke University study stated:
Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
•81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
• 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
• 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
• 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
• 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
• 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
"You have a ridiculous argument if you think you can make a one size fits all estimation of how to stop the violence if it does not include some repercussions for the misuse of a gun."
There are repercussions for the misuse of a gun.Precisely and the 20,00 laws on the books are not being used to prosecute offenders so their misuse goes unpunished. What happens if you don't tell somebody that what they are doing is wrong? They continue to act out in the way you refuse to correct them. If caught at an early stage in their regression it might have a long term affect on them and those they may harm.
wilderness
Gun violence is high, yes, but if it weren't guns it would be something else - guns are nothing but a handy tool for the violence-oriented among us.
The data from other countries show different , less gun, less crime. Authority kill more people than criminal, so when Authority are bad examples. Why should the criminal kill less then the state when their worst hypocrites.
Put 2 killers in a room, arm one of killers with a hammers, also include a knives, baseball bat, razor blades, broken wine bottles, chains etc ect. Then armed the other killer with just a gun.
Have them fight to the death- who is most likely to win?Keep in mind, those other tools are useful for other things, and not designed to kill people.
Yes, if it weren't guns it would be something else.
No, data from other countries does NOT show less guns=less crime. In reality there is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate. Only in third world countries does authority kill more of it's citizens than criminals do.
The winner will depend on training. A trained fighter will always win out over someone with a gun, but who has never held one before. Their chances of even finding the safety before being killed are slim, let alone shooting and actually hitting someone. While it is a common error to say the gunman will always win it is quite false.That will depend on training. One person, having never handled a gun, but has one and a handful of shells, and a samurai swordmaster with his sword, both locked in a 3X3 meter room. Who do YOU think will "win"?
This is your argument? Now I know I am really wasting my time. You just wish to be contrary for contrary sake.
What argument? An obvious statement of fact?
No, Rhamson, you continue to try and claim that the problem is the gun, that further gun legislation of one kind or another will fix everything. It won't, and you completely ignore that plain fact, always trying to say that if only we could end gun violence it would end violence. You know better, I know better, we both know it won't make any difference to the body count, but you continue to make the claim.
So I agree. I give up. You don't wish to live in the real world, but only in the one you've made up where a chunk of iron is causing all those people to kill other people. OK - I can't help you.
For the average over size room is 20'x20'
I can't imagine running out of idea.s to kill anyone in my lifetime.
For fun sake, I have never shot a real gun, although played plenty of video games and good a good fighter. If a trained killer marine and I were to fight to the death, by the time he draw back his arm to throw a knife, he would be shot and dead. Even a fool would have a chance against a marines,if the fool didn't loose his nerve.
2011, rifles were used in 323 murders, while personal weapons accounted for 726. Blunt objects were used in 496 murders while knives accounted for 1,694. Handguns accounted for 6,220 murders.Having a hard understanding the point of your post.
You can play imaginary "what if" games all day long, but they do not relate to life, and are NOT an indication of whether guns promote more murders than if they weren't there.
Yes, we all know guns were used to kill people. What we also know is that if the guns weren't there the bodies still would be. So what is the point in listing those statistics?
The points is- less guns, less kills, other weapon would require much more skill to kill someone. There are three time more people killed by guns than by all other weapons combined, blunt object, knives, poison and etc.
Heard a hammer kills more people than hammers. If that were true, the police and the army would be dressed up like Thor with hammers in their hand rather then with guns and vests.Sorry, but if you actually investigate the question you will find that fewer guns does NOT mean less murders.
Now you may find that counter-intuitive, you may find it astonishing (I did) and you may find it really hard to believe, but it is true. There is absolutely no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate.
So the point is that focusing on guns will not solve the violence problem the US has. Guns are a side issue, of importance ONLY to those that do not care enough to research the question and those that fear an inanimate chunk of iron. Not to the reasoning people that actually try to find solutions to the body count.
And just for you - if you look at a graph of the homicide rates in the US for the last 100 years, you will find a huge spike during prohibition. Ban alcohol, the murder rate goes up (way up) - bring back alcohol and it immediately falls. There is another huge spike roughly corresponding to legal action against cannabis. Begin a war on drugs - the murder rate rises dramatically. Back off enforcing marijuana laws and it begins to fall.
Question - is that hunk of iron the cause, or laws denying people what they want and demand? Is the iron the cause, or do people require a blunting of mental prowess, an intentional "stupid" phase periodically, or they become killers? (Hint; there is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate).
I think you are right about the change in mindset part. But I also think the heavier penalties also had a lot to do with it.
In the past, it was possible to get away with a couple DUIs with just a fine - now a second DUI could, and a 3rd almost always does, include some jail time. Plus the fines and penalties have become a lot more than a slap on the wrist. Even for folks that can afford it.
GA
I think it can be boiled down to a much simpler explanation, without all the sociological "possible" reasons you mentioned. And it lays in plain view, on the same plate as Wilderness' "change in mindset" explanation...
I think it is our cultural left-turn away from the concept of personal responsibility. As simple as that. That is the trunk of the tree of our society's problems - everything else is just branches and leaves.
Of course that's just my two cents worth.
GA
There is an alarmist bunch who make all or nothing rants as the topic allows. Just as they express all Democrats are lefties there are the others that conjure up the idea that all Republicans are Tea Party nuts.
"Perhaps they go to far trying to find a solution, but is it really wrong to want to keep guns out of the hands of people with a violent criminal record by making them go through a simple background check?"
It's already required, but only the law abiding go through a background check at a licensed dealer. Criminals buy their guns from illegal street dealers or from straw buyers.The gun cancer has spread everywhere, not as bad, a killer as smoking.
Yet, we did reduce smoking to half and we can do it with guns too. Crime will be greatly reduced, Less suicides, less people killing people they know greater than the criminal they don't know.A lot more people die in automobile accidents. Honestly, you'd probably save more lives by investing in a better transit system, bridges, and roads, by increasing safety standards and training for young, new drivers.
Guns are a convenient scapegoat, a quick fix.Cut the speed limit 10 MPH. You'll save more lives than magically taking every gun from every citizen in the country.
Most gun deaths are suicides, and people bent on suicide would simply find another way. Most other gun deaths are inner city gang murders, so if you are not suicidal, not a criminal or a gang member, don't buy illicit drugs, and are not a brave cop, your chances of being shot are near zero.
There is no 'gun cancer' and there is no crisis. 99.998% of legally owned guns never kill anyone.And yet...the numbers VERY plainly show that there is exactly zero correlation between guns and homicide rates. You might (might) save a handful of suicides or accidents, but that's it. You will absolutely not save any significant number of people dying from being shot by someone else.
"Why can't America's learn from much safer Countries who do not allow guns altogether, for Police or for the Public."
Why do you suppose heavily armed Switzerland has such a low crime rate? Or Sweden? Or even your own Canada?
None have the large minority population that the US has, and sadly, it is the minorities who commit most of the crime and are also the victims.Guns in America was really became a national scandal
Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two.But the US murder rate is on par with most other first world countries. A pretty obvious indication that guns aren't the problem, isn't it? Or is that something that you would rather pretend doesn't show up so plainly?
How about quoting some nice, round stats on homicide rates, not just gun homicides? Or do I need to do it?WIKI
By region
UNODC murder rates most recent year
Region Rate Count
Africa 17.0 169,105
Americas 15.4 144,635
Asia 3.1 127,120
Europe 3.2 23,516
Oceania 2.9 1,180
World 6.9 466,078
psycheskinner
Where did you get 3.9 per 100,000 USA homicide rate?If USA rate is half of the World's rate, I might move back there. lo
What ever you do don't move to San Pedro Sula in Honduras as their homicide rate is 158 per 100.000.
New Orleans looks quite nice with 57 per 100.000.Nothing like experiencing living in both the USA and Centro America and both do have there hot spot to stay away from, yet find people in Centro America are happier.
I loss millions of dollars from companies and Governments, and from street criminals, about $600 altogether
The white collar crime has done more harm to me and most people slavery to their bills.
That figure is in the ballpark for US homicide rate per the UN figures compiled by the small arms study they use. It does, of course, depend somewhat on the year, but it is in the ballpark for any half way recent year.
*edit* scrolling down your own WIKI link, it shows the US as 4.8 for "the most recent year", whatever that is. I believe it has edged down since then.One thing notice, it's predominate christian countries creating the highest murder rates and wars. Small Latin countries have highest murder rate.
highest in the Americas (29.3 per 100,000 males), where it is almost seven times higher than in Asia, Europe and Oceania (all under 4.5 per 100,000 males)," shares UN in a press release. "In particular, the homicide rate for male victims aged 15-29 in South and Central America is over four times the global average rate for that age group. More than 1 in 7 of all homicide victims globally is a young male aged 15-29 in the Americas." it's the fear of guns, causing over control of the masses , We are much better at killing ourselves where suicide kills more than murder, war and terror combined. Most suicides,- gun related. I wish we the people take over the courage and thinking rather than letting the Governments do too much of thinking for us.
Then why are our streets safe to walk if we stay out of the ghettos? The UK is twice as violent as the US, and the UN recently named Scotland as the most violent nation on Earth.
Again, the vast majority of murders in the US are our large minority populations killing each other. We cannot compare the US to countries that have little to no minority population.The US has only has 4% of the world' population and they have half of the World's war budget.
That's not Defense, that Offense, smells of greed to me.
I've traveled 94 countries, 6 war zone countries and every state in America except Alaska. By far it;s the most dangerous country except Centro parts of Africa that even I won't go. Nobody will help them out unless they have oil or opium.Never been south of the American border, eh? Or to South Africa? Or the bush country in Australia? How about Columbia?
As countries go, the US is about on par with the rest of the first world, and far better than most of the third.Drug Columbia was the worst back in the 70s 80s, much safer now, feel safer in most third world countries than the USA. People are bigger, many carry weapons, and the police are worst than the criminals by record. Just think 95% of crime is not street crime
Nice that you feel safer in countries with enormous crime rates and indigenous populations that target foreigners in general and Americans in specific, but I'm not sure what that has to do with reality and whether you actually ARE safer. Or am I missing something here?
I mean, I know several people with a carry permit - not one of whom typically carries a weapon. No one I know of walks around armed. I don't find police more violent or dangerous than the criminals around my area. And even if only 5% or crime is not street violence, that doesn't make a country dangerous to walk around in.Street people or criminal have done very little harm to me. White people have done far more harm to me, than all races combined.
Goverments and Large companies routinely commit crimes that injure the public much more than street crimes in many ways: economically, socially, physically and environmentally. Yet corporate crimes are generally dealt with by civil and administrative law, with penalties such as fines but not prison. In environmental law, e.g., many industries control themselves.
Other crimes most common are white collar crime is when an employee steals from the employer or who cheats customers and pockets the difference.Typically a corporate criminal bribes a government, dumps toxic industrial waste into rivers. Corporate crimes are often called quiet acts because people not only don’t know whom to blame but may not even know that they have been victimized. There are data collection problems also. It's endless."Street people or criminal have done very little harm to me. White people have done far more harm to me, than all races combined. "
Did you intend these two statements to be connected or have something in common? Did you intend that they correlate in some manner? Because I find the suggestion that only non-whites can be criminals to be really offensive; almost as much as the one that only whites ever harm anyone.
Not sure what your solution is to corporate crimes outside of fines - do you find it reasonable to put the corporate office behind bars?
No, a typical corporate criminal doesn't bribe a government official and dump toxic waste into a river. Not sure where you are, but that is quite uncommon in the US. And if people don't know they are a victim, then it's hard to agree that a crime was done. No harm - no crime; I'm not a believer in "victimless crimes" such as THC usage or prostitution.
But still, if you mean to indicate that all crimes contribute equally to how dangerous it is to walk down the street in various countries, I would have to agree with you. The US is then as dangerous as Columbia or Mexico, it's just that one will fleece the tourist and the other kill them.White Russia and America own 90% of the World's nukes. America per capita has the fastest growing carbon foot print on the face of the earth.
Whites race are in war with Brown people most. American Natives, Middle East and Centro and South America.You can't really believe most of the American Press
3.9 per 100,000 is not a horrendous homicide rate for a first world country. Europe is not much different at 3.2
That said Australasia and the United Kingdom is 1.0 -- so, room for improvement.We are over twice as likely to be assaulted on the streets of the unarmed UK as we are on the streets of the US. That's a fact:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … ates/CrimeAnd you are much more likely to be bludgeoned to death (bats, pipes, hands, feet, etc.) in Canada than in the US.
It doesn't matter much what method is used when the body cools, and those thinking the prohibiting honest citizens from owning any specific weapon will decrease the body count somehow just don't get it.Nonsense, violence will never slow down or stop violence's. I'm very adventurist and living proof of that. Harmed nobody
If we compare white crime only (since neither Canada nor the UK has a sizable black or Hispanic population and only about 30% of all murders in the US are committed by whites), we find that the murder rates per 100,000 are quite comparable with Canada at 1.63, the US at 1.42, and the UK at 1.17.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … 000-peopleAmerica has had his racist issue for a long the drug war on Marijuana was base on deporting Mexican as it was call the Mexican drug. They only got out of segregation in the mid 60s for black.
Black Americans are arrested at 2.6 times the per-capita rate of all other Americans, and this ratio is even higher for murder (6.3 times) and robbery (8.1 times). Much of the arrest are still racist, one big reason also is due to lack of finance for lawyers.Wait. Because the US deported Mexican citizens violating US laws, and because most Mary Jane came out of Mexico made the US racist? Can't say as I follow that.
Where are most arrests made, statistically? Inner city ghetto's maybe? What is the racial mix there? Mostly black maybe? And possibly that inevitably results in more blacks arrested on a per-capita basis? And that makes the US cops racist? Can't say as I follow that reasoning either. And lack of financing for lawyers has zero affect on the arrest rate - only the conviction rate which I will absolutely agree is wrong.Acknowledge that the Racism of Harry Anslinger led to Cannabis Prohibition
Petition by
If you've never heard of Harry Anslinger, Google the name and prepare to be disgusted.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of American lives are ripped apart, by a law that was inspired by quotes like "Marihuana makes the 'darkies' think they're just as good as a White Man" and "Marihuana makes Black Men look twice, at White Women".
Cannabis Prohibition is currently opposed by 70% of the American Public, and Medical Use is legal in 16 States and the District of Columbia, all while the Federal Government relies on studies that have been dis proven many times over, to maintain a status quo, that is making Dealers and the Privatized Prison Industry rich, while destroying individual lives, families, and even entire communities, AND makes a mockery of the average American's claim to cherish and defend Liberty and FreedomAnd all that shows that the US is racially discriminating against citizens of Mexico? That IS where you started, you know...
Aren't you really grasping at the "RACISM!" cry here?This is how it always goes. The left claims that the US murder rate is justification for banning guns, and when we point out that a very small segment is actually responsible for most of these killings, we are labeled racists.
We should instead examine why this is happening and make it a national priority to put a stop to it, so these minority kids get a fair shot at success.Well, yes, of course. As guns don't kill people, another rallying cry must be found to divert attention from the real issue; the homicide rate in the country. Can't be looking at that much at all because, well, it will end up pointing to something very wrong at the root of our society. And it ain't the iron that some people carry around.
Anti-marijuana laws were based on racism, not science, There is a lot more profit for the prison complex and police benefits going after pot raids than murderers. Same with the war complex more profit going after oil countries or after opium countries to steal for profit. How else will they out grow the guns of the public?
Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics pushed it for explicitly racist reasons, saying, "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men," There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." (And god forbid women should sleep with entertainers!)
Being an artist an entertainer I’m still experience the abuse and I don’t do drugs.But what does all that have to do with deporting Mexican citizens that violate our laws? That IS where the "racism" started, after all - a tirade about weed and Mexicans...
Did you know Marijuana is a drug?Schedule 1 drugs Heroin LSD, Acid diethylamide Marijuana (cannabis) Methaqualone-
I would Schedule marijuana a four and no one has directly has died from cannabis for 10,000 years
Schedule 3 - Nicotine – has directly kills more people than all drugs combined plus more
Of the millions of people convicted of marijuana that were killed or imprisoned. Only two cops were killed in the line of duty. If anyone tell you, these people come out of prison- better, is a liar also.
I 'm glad you challenge these questions, most people do not have the courage to ask.Yes, I challenge these kinds of things. For instance - you have exactly zero idea what the cause of death was for an African peasant 10,000 years ago. You certainly cannot truthfully make the claim that weed has never killed a single person in that time span; it is almost inevitable that there were dead in the hundreds.
Nor can you make the claim that Nicotine has killed more people than all other drugs combined; you have no figures showing that at all.
You and I both know that more than two cops have been killed in the line of duty, and we both know that more than two were killed in the line of duty concerning weed. If nothing else, we've lost that many taking down the farmers in the far off hills, growing the stuff.
Bottom line - you are so enamored of a drug you claim not to use that you will say anything at all to promote it. Lie, truth, unknown; it makes no difference if it promotes marijuana. You would be far ahead of the game to research your ridiculous claims and set aside those that are either known false (2 cops dead in the line of duty) or completely unknown (no one killed in 10 millenium). Such statements do not promote trust or belief, but rather make you out to be mouthing platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.Boys, got to proof all time in this site.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2006, when their database was last updated, 22,073 people died of alcohol, 12,113 died of AIDS, 43,664 died of car accidents, 38,396 died of drug use — legal and illegal — 18,573 died of murder and 33,300 died of suicide.
That brings us to a total of 168,119 deaths, far less than the 450,000 that die from smoking annually.
Do some checking too? I'll be back later with the rest. Just to Remind though, Governments hide things like tobacco company.Are you trying to say that nicotine directly causes all of the deaths attributed to smoking? Remember, nicotine has nothing to do with lung cancer, emphysema or any of the other lung diseases, and causes heart disease only in combination with other factors (primarily high cholesterol)
But regardless of that fact, nicotine was virtually unknown prior to the European discovery of the America's and you claimed it has caused more deaths than any other drug.Smoking Harms nearly every organ of the body causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general. Since the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health was published 50 years ago, more than 20 million Americans have died because of smoking.
Annual Cigarette Smoking-Related Mortality in the United States, 2005–2009
Lung cancer Other cancersa Coronary heart disease Respiratory Diseases
Cerebrovascular disease vascular Pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis Cardiovascular and Metabolic diseasec Diabetes mellitus Coronary heart disease
, TOTAL Attributable Deaths 480,317
Worldwide -Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030. Related links
• WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2013
• Tobacco Free Initiative
• WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• WHO global report: mortality attributable to tobacco
Tobacco kills Americans greater than their entire USA war history DEATH, smoking make guns look- not so badAll at least semi true (personally, I think many are pretty bad exaggerations), but your comment was:
"Schedule 3 - Nicotine – has directly kills more people than all drugs combined plus more"
which addressed a specific drug, not smoking tobacco.Maybe the reports are not telling the total truth, yet by my senses it's true.
Who eats tobacco, you smoke it, ok a word mishap.
There has never been a death reported from smoking marijuana in man’s history, although the Government claims brain damage and death to a smoking monkey by 40 joints under a gas mask. He really die because he could not breath.
Prescription drugs are now killing far more people than illegal drugs, 37,000 a drug, smoking 450.000 deaths.
They made all drug legal in Portugal and the crime rate went down Twelve years ago, Portugal eliminated criminal penalties for drug users. Since then, those caught with small amounts of marijuana, cocaine or heroin goes indicted and possession is a misdemeanor on par with illegal parking. Experts are pleased with the results and less need for guns.
Prescription drugs are now killing far more people than illegal drugs, 37,000 a drug, smoking 450.000 deaths.
They made all drug legal in Portugal and the crime rate went down Twelve years ago, Portugal eliminated criminal penalties for drug users. Since then, those caught with small amounts of marijuana, cocaine or heroin goes unindicted and possession is a misdemeanor on par with illegal parking. Experts are pleased with the results and less need for guns.Unfortunately your senses do not have hardly any data to go with, plus what you DO have is highly spun to conform to a desired conclusion that mary jane is good for you.
No, the mishap is saying nicotine while meaning tobacco; where deaths are concerned one is at least double the other (much more, I think) while at at the same time nicotine is classified as a drug (the current topic) and tobacco is not.
I do not doubt that there has never been a coroner willing to go on record as saying THC killed a person. But that does NOT mean it didn't happen, which is what your claim was and certainly does not mean that THC was the determining factor in, say, a car accident. In addition, I do not believe that the monkey you reference had insufficient oxygen in the mask mixture to support life, as you insinuate. More likely the THC removed both the voluntary and involuntary needs to breathe. Which means the monkey died from an OD.
If prescription drugs are now killing more people, I would have to say the "war on drugs" is successful in preventing deaths. Not that prescription drugs are somehow bad for you, which is again the insinuation.
Make a crime legal and the crime rate goes down, yes. Your point? That if there were no laws (no activity deemed illegal) there would be no crime? That would be true, but not a place I would choose to live in, either, not being a fan of "might makes right".I gave you a few links for Nicotine which is in tobacco or tobacco links
What links would cannabis have when it'd illegal in different degrees in every country in the world. Guarded by American military bases in about 180 counties around the world.
The documentary is called the union. The Government used monkeys to see if weed killed brain cells, by making them smoke 30 joints a day for a month or something; They concluded that it did harm brain cells. Now what they actually did was pump extremely potent weed into their system (through gas mask or some device) that equaled about 60 joints in five minutes. The monkeys suffocated from lax of oxygen, but they were tested post death for the brain damage. When one looses air to the brain, cells die. The suffocation caused the damage not weed. So government you successfully lied to your nation and killed cute monkeys.
Its incredibly less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and actually has medical benefits and make 50,000 other products . Gun and smoking, sorry just not as useful. Don’t you think pot should be legal?If you gave links for nicotine, I missed them. Or for anything else, for that matter - all I've noted are claims, supposedly from government sources but without links.
"although the Government claims brain damage and death to a smoking monkey by 40 joints under a gas mask. He really die because he could not breath."
does NOT indicate "Now what they actually did was pump extremely potent weed into their system (through gas mask or some device) that equaled about 60 joints in five minutes".
Castle, you really need to keep your stories straight, and you really, REALLY need to verify them before posting stories and tales that you haven't a clue if true or not. Either the monkey smoked 40 joints under a gas mask, or it had smoke from 60 joints forced into it's lungs in five minutes. The two are NOT the same, but you have claimed both to be true. It does nothing for your credibility.
I mix it up with another Government monkey smoking story who did the same experiment, although I forgot where the link was. GW Bush was another experiment too. (know you, looks like a chimp and smoke too) Most people in America want to legalize it yet no one senator will support it, that's like treason. Yet, Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Back to those guns again.
Here we go again. As there has never been a vote, we don't know if over half the country wants it legal. Only through polls, polls carefully crafted to give the results desired by whoever is paying for it.
But I remember a story from the 60's or 70's, showing definite brain damage from THC. After rat brains had been put through a blender, left in 90 degree heat and in the sunlight for 2 weeks, and soaked in a strong solution of THC there was definite cell deterioration. A funny story, and it sounds much like your tale of the monkey deliberately killed by suffocation.
Again, the Government make too much money from the prison complex and synthetic large Corporation that want weed out. Than why would the America Government tell us the truth about the experiment they made on weed or how most America would want to legalized it. We did a vote in Canada where 88% of Canadian do not want people to have a criminal record over weed.
Did you know, their more hunters in Canada than hockey players. That I can agree with to a degree. Just not hand guns and machine guns design to kill people.Unfortunately for that idea, the prison system is a HUGE drain on the tax base, not a money maker.
I might point out as well that there are extremely few machine guns floating around, and as far as I have been able to ascertain, only a single murder (in the US) since the days of Bonnie and Clyde or the Godfather. Hand guns, of course, are a popular tool for killing people, but there is zero evidence linking guns of ANY kind to the murder rate anywhere in any country. Meaning that more guns, any type, does not mean more killing; with that known there is zero reason to collect or ban guns, whether hand, machine or rifles. Not even the dreaded "assault rifle" with it's black paint!
It's not racist to point out who is doing the killing and who are also being the victims. It's racist to ignore it, and it is being ignored.
If we honestly look at what is really killing us most. WAR is only at number 59th place and murder at 42nd place. The 10 ten ways to die is most related to our own physical and mental health in our natural environment, in what we eat or drink or work out.
Guns purpose is more for controlling the masses which the Governments dose best. The Government is in the back pocket of white large corporation profits. Beside Blacks kill more black than black kill whites. Since we are brainwash or whitewash so well, when will we all get along and be equal.
I can dance with black woman in a bar in Canada yet got throw out twice for doing that in the US. Racism of Harry Anslinger made dancing with blacks or worst marriage illegal . It seemS it;s still an unwritten law in some places.
Foolish message. First, Obama has proposed nothing to take anyone's guns away. Eric Holder has never tried to stop any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun.
Second, Obama has sent no guns to Mexico. Fast and Furious was a program to monitor the sale of guns to straw purchasers who buy guns legally and smuggle them to criminals in Mexico. It began under Bush and was ended by Obama.Obama is a puppet like Bush, and (agree) he has allow more of a mess to grow.
More Mexican have dead around the boarders over the drug wars than killed in Afghanistan war over opium wars. Yes, opium not over the strawman or trillion $ man Bin laden.
When 99.999% of Americans will not be shot or injured by a firearm this year, is it really a crisis?
And since liberals are so supportive of assisted suicide and even euthanasia, why are they so opposed to do-it-yourself with a gun? More than half of all gun deaths are actually suicides, a fact that liberal gun haters omit when they are trying to fan the anti-gun flames.
liberal and conservative is like front and back, we need both inside of each other at different time, why have war with yourself. Or dose a tree fight with its own branches.
What kills more than anything is our fast and fat food markets. Wail the rich are getting richer off it, we are too busy fighting each other wail they walk away with the money. Gun death toll is not the great killer here, its the threat of guns, the Government has many, and when the public losses their defence and control against the Government which are in bed with the rich. Get rid of guns from both sides, like peaceful Japan.
Like too much fat sugary food, its too convenient to get a guns with no licence. The rich will sell you the rope to hang yourself too. Guns do kill more than dogs do and in 10 states in the US, guns kill more than cars.
Dogs and cars need licences and both are useful , why not useless Guns have licences.
Some gun people tell me Doctors kill more people than guns. Maybe they should allow patients guns to make sure the Doctor dose the right job. Where dose it end, guns are in school lockers, shopping malls guards and everywhere, oh my God.!!!
"This post might make sense if any of it was true. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder or anyone else in the administration is proposing anything more than background checks - which are supported by 92% of the American people."
We already do background checks, on any guns we buy from a dealer, including at gun shows. What the left wants to do is burden private gun owners by requiring them to do a background check if they sell a gun to a friend, even though such sales seldom result in crimes.
"Also nobody gave or sold guns to criminals in Mexico."
A straw man. No one is arguing that American guns were sold in Mexico.
"Fast and Furious simply monitored the sale of guns to straw buyers in order to track the flow of guns to criminals."
Except that they did not track those guns. They had no idea where they went.That's how they ended up killing so many people. They deliberately sold them to criminals and then they failed to track them. That's scandalous behavior, and why an ATF agent blew the whistle!Just legalize drugs, and guns will be greatly reduced.
I won't argue with that. In a free country, we ought to be able to use such drugs as long as we don't make other people responsible for the result.
People are responsible for their own bodies. Telling people NO, like for example to POT only makes them want it more. Once they are too stone to the eyeballs, too many times, they will cut back and even smoke it less.
"Self protection in the home; if I have time to open the safe and load the gun, I have time to slide a bracelet on."
That's another liberal myth. Small children finding a loaded gun and killing themselves with it happens less than 50 times a year, and then only in homes where the parents are so inept that they don't bother teaching their kids about guns, or they leave it on the coffee table!
An unloaded and inaccessible gun is utterly useless, which is why liberals demand that they be kept that way. When I was growing up, most homes had a shotgun leaning in a corner with a box of shells up on a shelf, and we knew better than to even get near it.Our guns were the same, but then the front door was never locked, either, unless we were to be gone more than a day or so.
Times have changed, and that does make a difference. I agree that children aren't a major problem for most gun owners, but the children's friends are and so are thieves.
Other countries seem to manage gun ownership better than we do. Why don't we just do what they do? This is not an unsolvable problem. I sometimes think we just don't want to solve it.
The problem with emulating other countries is that many don't really have gun control; they ban guns. Take Britain for example. It's illegal to own a handgun there. That is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.
Nearly 70% of gun crime in America is committed by the large minority population that the other heavily armed countries like Switzerland simply don't have. We need to address the problems that lead young minority men and women down the wrong road. Instead, we look the other way. The same day that 20 white kids were killed in a mass school shooting, 22 black kids died on inner city streets. One made headlines for weeks. The other was barely mentioned because it happens every day.
Nobody wants to address this for fear of being branded a racist, but you're absolutely right.
"And as plainly as you have identified reasoning other than your own as "silly" you will fail to find an end to the violence."
If your goal is to put an end to human violence, I wish you well but I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed because you will accomplish very little.That is precisely the gist of all my posts related to this subject. Good luck with ending the violence that precedes the use of a gun or any other weapon for that matter. My reasoning's are that we can approach the violence from the point of view that the few who have a propensity to commit murders and other such crimes with a gun should be subjected to the most stringent of punishments. Wilderness purports that the gun is not the offender but the tool by which the criminal accomplishes his act. I agree that it is an important point but to ignore the tool that is easily accessible will not help nor be the end all be all to curb the violence. It is merely a part of the problem and if ignored nothing can be accomplished. As long as man has and continues to exist there will be those that will commit violence. My approach is to deal with those individuals in a comprehensive manner while Wilderness wishes to dismiss any idea of gun accountability and prevention for those individuals that continue in their violent ways.
99.998% of the legally owned guns in the US will never be used to shoot anyone, so why would you punish the law-abiding?
So what do you propose that would actually work? Tell us what law you would pass that you guarantee will stop criminals from committing gun murders.Issue all cops a fully automatic SAW and shoot to kill orders at the first sign of a gun. It will go a long way towards stopping gun murders, even if it won't affect the overall murder rate.
You'll have some collateral damage but, hey, the rate of gun murders will fall and victims of stabbings, car bombs, bludgeonings and other weapons can take solace in that they were never shot. And we could reasonably expect the collateral damage to ease off to only a few thousand per year after a few years of shooting anyone with a gun.
It will work in reducing the number of guns out there, and a few thousand innocent lives each year is a cheap price to pay for that!Yippee Ki Yo Ki Yay. Let the gunslingers loose! That will surely solve it. Two negatives make a positive? Escalate the violence is your answer? I should have seen it coming. It's all good until the collateral damage is one of your loved ones. Is that for the greater good? You're a champ for your sacrifice.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what we are advocating.
Hyperbole begets hyperbole.
I went over this earlier in this topic. I would catch them at a earlier stage of their criminal career and especially if their offense was weapon related. I would throw the book at them and make the consequences so severe they would at least think of a better way to get away with it if they were so inclined. The problem is that the violent criminals know there is bargaining room and flip on each other to get out of a lengthy or severe sentence. There are 20,000 laws on the books to deal with these people but they are plea bargained out over time so they pay little attention to their actions or just get a better lawyer. People who want to murder will do just that by any means they see possible but not all people who murder repeat it once they have felt the full extent of the law.
That would not be the case. While Wilderness understands and agrees that the gun did not shoot anyone, the point of Wilderness's argument is that removing guns won't stop the blood shed. And it won't - experience the world over plainly shows that.
Wilderness understands as well that you don't want to discuss that, that you think you find reasons it shouldn't work that way and therefore it isn't true, but the fact remains that it DOES work that way, and removing guns won't stop the murders.
And THAT leads to the inescapable conclusions that gun laws, whether total confiscation or any lesser action, will not affect the murder rate and is therefore a dead end and should not be pursued. This, of course, assumes that the goal is to save lives, not make a political statement or assuage irrational fears. If the goal is actually to calm the populace that is screaming for gun removal, then by all means continue the attack on guns with the intent of eventually taking them all away.
Some like violence and blowing things up, too bad for the many who do not.
And that is the problem. So how do we stop it? How do we eliminate that joy in violence - how do we instill peace into our citizenry?
When has the threat of a severe penalty ever stopped a killer? They ignore penalties because they either don't think they will be caught or don't care! There is no sufficient threat deterrent to stop crime. In fact penalties are not meant to deter. They are meant to punish.
If you think more severe penalties will work, you are ignoring human nature.To kill someone to prove killing is wrong is just hypocritical. You can't show data of proof of the increase of crime a gun makes to a man of power with a gun, Bigger guns override wisdom, Military and prison complex far out weights education and treatment centers.
How could you know? You are assuming that everyone who picks up a gun to kill someone does in fact carry it out. Or that after running all the options through their head they just complete the murder. Remember what happens when you assume?
"How could you know? You are assuming that everyone who picks up a gun to kill someone does in fact carry it out."
What are you talking about? I never said any of that!
"Or that after running all the options through their head they just complete the murder."
I also said nothing remotely like that! Sheesh!
"Remember what happens when you assume?"
You should take your own advice! You 'assumed' I meant all that when I said nothing of the sort!"When has the threat of a severe penalty ever stopped a killer?" How could you know?
"They ignore penalties because they either don't think they will be caught or don't care!" You are assuming that everyone who picks up a gun to kill someone does in fact carry it out.
"There is no sufficient threat deterrent to stop crime. In fact penalties are not meant to deter. They are meant to punish."
What do you base this claim on? 3.7% of murderers released from prison commit murder again is one statistic that shows most don't commit murder after serving time. Are the rest just lucky? Does anyone who does not commit a crime do so because they were taught as a child that it is not a nice thing to do? Or are they afraid of the consequences? Your all or nothing assumption is what I was taking about.
"If you think more severe penalties will work, you are ignoring human nature." Does that apply to capital crimes or misdemeanors or both? Once again an all or nothing assumption based on what? How many juveniles get into trouble and have their record sealed when they turn twenty one and never offend again? How many manslaughter convicts get paroled and never offend again? Your statements indicate that all convicts are the same and not able to be rehabilitated. Perhaps you forgot something else about human nature, the dynamic thought process whereby most people learn from their mistakes.You scold others for making 'assumptions', yet look at all the assumptions you just made! You read in things that aren't there and then put words in your opponent's mouth he never said. And on top of all that, you ask loaded questions.
You are a walking example of logical fallacies. Prepare to be ignored.Testy aren't we? I just answered your questions in the order you asked them and while I am not trying to trap anybody into saying something they will regret you left the door open as they say. Sorry to offend you and I would appreciate it if you would ignore me in the future if you get upset so easily. Thank you.
Once again you make the assumptions you claim others should avoid. You assume I'm angry, when I'm actually just trying to point out all your logical fallacies. Read this and then get back to me:
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/E … lacies.htmVery Good! You actually have a theory based on some study. Now back to the subject at hand. I would appreciate it if you could stay on subject as that is what we began and the nature of your assumed understanding of what is being discussed. You never addressed any point I was making instead trying to deflect the conversation to some other assumed predisposition. I tried to help you and get you up to speed on the subject we have been covering for the last several days without your participation but you have a judgment that seems to require little information to make. Guess what? That is an assumption on your part as well!
The subject I was discussing was the recidivism rate of convicted murderers let out on parole that did not repeat murder. That being a 3.7% repeating rate. This suggests a rehabilitation that you so soundly declared was instead just punishment. What say you on this.
I was unaware that you are the reigning authority on what can and cannot be discussed.
A question I don't believe you ever addressed:
"Tell us what law you would pass that you guarantee will stop criminals from committing gun murders."
(And if you can't guarantee that your law will work, why should we support it?)
Just give us a straight answer. No weaseling.Thank you for getting back on topic. There are no guarantees with anything but statistically the recidivism rate for murderers on parole is surprisingly low. They range from the 3.7% I mentioned earlier to some that are as low as 1.2%. I mentioned these statistics because you stated that prison was not for rehabilitation but as punishment. It seems in the endeavor to punish these murderers there was at least a lesson learned and rehabilitation with regards to murder was achieved. Can you address this anomaly to the popular notion of no rehabilitation taking place.
If you can't/won't guarantee that your law (whatever it is) will work, you're just blowing smoke.
If in the course of life you have found an absolute when it relates to human behavior I would like to hear it. Other than that I think you have something funny in that pipe YOU are blowing smoke out of.
If your argument rests on the guarantee that a law will work and you will only support a law with a guarantee of 100% success, then you obviously support lawlessness. There's no law on the books that's guaranteed to work.
But if you are going to compel those who have committed no crime to restrict their Constitutionally protected rights with a law that is less than perfect and endangers the life of that law abiding citizen, aren't you constricted his rights? To what end? It is criminals who need controlled and ample evidence suggests that when gun crime laws are not thoroughly enforced then gun crime grows. Evidence also suggests that when ordinary laws are not enforced, all crime increases.
The lefty seeks to control those who are doing little more than exercising rights authored by God or by Nature. One cannot be stripped of those rights with out tyrannical power.
If you are so keen on restricting the right to keep and bear arms are you equally as keen on restricting the right to free speech? Given the recent flap of the word "bossy" I would bet the answer is yes.If someone is going to propose yet another new gun law that will further restrict our right to keep and bear arms, I think we have both a right and a duty to demand that such a law be predicated on either success or automatic repeal.
If you don't have a solution that you're willing to stand behind and guarantee, then you have no solution at all.
It's just hot air."Concealed carry has only produced shootings and no deterrence."
Where's your source for that false statement?
The fact is, it's just the opposire:
http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/03/s … r-murders/Really? the NRA stance as a source? Okay here is one to refute it. There are just as many studies to refute both sides of the argument so if you must go this route here : http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories … crime.html
We could go on like this with exactly the argument I outlined in my post. Do you have something original or more than an opinion by another source? Is there any room to find a middle ground?
BTW, if an unarmed man assaults me, he too will probably get shot. You may not think that's 'fair', but that's the whole purpose of being armed.
Btw, in the event that an armed or unarmed assailant tried to assault me or those who I love, I like the idea that me having a gun would stop them. Frankly, I like the idea of shooting some crazy person who's trying to hurt people. I just kind of don't trust other people that much to make those decisions. Gun control based on IQ might be a start.
How about Free speech by IQ test or voting or marrying or citizenship or employment or fertility? Who will write the test?
Won't wok Lawyers and politician have the highest IQ, it's what in the heart and kindness is what really counts.
Wok with man, said the Flintstones.
I mean it won't work.You mistake my meaning, my friend. It was meant as a sarcastic response to the idea of IQ testing for gun ownership. In America this is a Constitutionally protected right. If we subject all American's protected rights to IQ tests where does it end.
The travails of a language barrier.You say that as if that's a bad thing.
As long as the IQ tests are comprehensive and not just "finish the pattern"-style crap, I'd be all in favor of turning everyone with an IQ less than ~110 into soylent green. Because soylent green is delicious.
"The fact remains Zimmerman confronted Martin through his actions and Martin felt threatened. Zimmerman as the one holding all the power prior to the altercation continued against better advice."
Well, since you were obviously there that night and saw things that no one else knows happened, why didn't you just step in and put a stop to it?
Again, all Martin had to do was go on home, and he'd still be alive. Instead, he decided to be macho and it got him killed.Did you not listen to the defenses argument? I guess you were there as an eye witness to what "really" happened. Once again your argument is predicated as how you want it to be and not what it was as outlined in the testimony of the defenses witness' who was on the phone at the time. As a good point to make for others in case they get into a situation like this, make sure there are no witness's present when the gun goes off. Sorry, making a villain out of the victim is an old tactic and works well for rape cases as well.
Jurors gave very little weight to Rachel Jeantel's testimony because she is a known liar, including under oath. Her supposed phone conversation was first related to Trayvon Martin's parents in their home, and in their presence, which makes it all but worthless.
What we know of this case is what we heard in the trial, and the verdict was self defense. You may not like that, but you can't spin it effectively because we all know better.
My argument is predicated on the jury's verdict...not guilty. Your argument is predicated on what you and most other liberals want to believe...that the evil white guy gunned down the unarmed and innocent little black child, as the leftist media portrayed Trayvon Martin from the get-go. The jury didn't buy it and neither do I.
You've already lost this argument because the jury has the last word, not you.
So people fully support stupid people owning guns? And proposing an IQ test for free speech is hardly analogous to supporting one for gun ownership when the end result of one is death and the other is incoherent blabber. Should crazy people have guns too?
And some of the comments about Trayvon Martin kid are just pure racism. 16-year-olds are not adults and are not capable of making the same decisions as adults. Some are, certainly, but psychologists will tell you that 16-year-olds are much more prone to making emotional, rationless decisions, which is why some states have started banning the execution of minors.
But I guess the kid deserved to get shot.And I'll just say this: if I had a gun and some kid jumped me and started beating me and I was capable of shooting him, I would.
...and you would be justified in doing so, with the added bonus of being right.
How about sueing them for assult, something would die in my soul, if I killed someone.
Can't imagine running out of ideas to kill anyone
"And proposing an IQ test for free speech is hardly analogous to supporting one for gun ownership when the end result of one is death and the other is incoherent blabber."
Most gun murders in the US are committed by minority gang members, and they are preceded by loyalty to gangs, and that loyalty is the result of talk, AKA: free speech.I just read an interesting opinion piece by an African-American who said that blacks don't seem to be as concerned with the number of black people killing other black people as they are when a white person kills a black person.
So I'll admit there's a point to be made there.They, and the liberal left, are also not concerned when a black kills a white because they don't see that as racist. To them, only white on black crime is racist.
You know this is like the Hitler analogy that always meanders it's way into a conversation. Race is always at play and there was a great deal of finger pointing on both sides and nothing was resolved as usual. So it is a mute point and doesn't deserve a comment.
On a different note I always find when discussing a topic such as gun violence with people that lean to the left, the view is to do away with them entirely. But when I talk to the right there is always the same arguments against any control with studies and the "real" inside scoop as to whatever point is salient in their defense of it. And they hold onto their story at all costs even to the ridiculousness of it all. If they could only hear themselves.
"You know this is like the Hitler analogy that always meanders it's way into a conversation."
And guess who 'meandered' it in? That would be you.Very clever. Ignore the content and switch the blame. The problem is that you wish to defend the indefensible. An innocent man was shot while being stalked by the assailant and the funny thing is you have fallen into the same trap by ignoring the content and switching the blame. Do you see a patterm here?
So says the man who ignores the trial verdict and switches the blame.
And you base the trial as a testament of the truth? Remember lady justice is blindfolded. Guess who helps tie the knot? The lawyers. This trial wreaked of injustice as Zimmerman told his story to the all white jury of women as the only eye witness. The same type of trial the O.J. verdict came down with an innocent verdict because the witness's are dead. I am sorry but basing your argument on a justice system that has put us in this predicament is not a good way for you to go.
Sour grapes. You wanted the 'evil white guy with a gun' to be convicted whether he was guilty or not, just like all the other liberals. When he was not, you liberals were enraged, because the jury dared to side with the armed white guy and find it was an act of self defense.
George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because Martin was trying to beat him to death. Live with it.Thank you for branding me a liberal. It is far easier in your mind to limit the thought process to one or the other type of person and define the enemy. That thinking is what is the problem. The inability to tackle this problem from a neutral objective position dooms the conversation. So I guess since you have "identified" me as one of those people any further conversation is fruitless. By the way I defend your and all other law biding citizens the right to have and use a firearm as is your constitutional right. If you don't mind I would like it now if you would continue ignoring me as your first post outlined. Thank you for your participation never the less.
I accept their rights as wrtten the the right to bare arms.
Just like when the guns were muskets and balls and even animals had a chance.
"But when I talk to the right there is always the same arguments against any control..."
I've been discussing the topic for years, and never once have I ever heard anyone on the right saying there should be no controls. We support reasonable restrictions like prohibiting the possession of guns to felons and the insane, or carrying guns into courtrooms, legislatures, and police stations.That's a good point. So many in the Left want to make conservatives seem like extremists. Hyperbole is their debate tool.
The Zimmerman/Martin case comes down to one thing...who threw the first blow. If that was Martin, and all evidence says it was, then it was self defense on Zimmerman's part. That's the crux of the case and that's why the jury ruled the way it did.
All Trayvon Martin had to do was walk a few feet further and he would have been home. Instead, he chose to pursue, confront, and attack Zimmerman. That foolish bravado cost him his life.Irrelevant. What you're forgetting is that one of those horrible "gun" thingies jumped out of the bushes and shot him dead for no reason at all. We must therefore rid the country of guns. Or require they be locked up at home. Or, preferably, melt them all into plowshares.
Isn't that what the thread is about, after all?When 99.9998% of Americans will not be shot in their lifetime, there is no gun crisis, so the anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment politicians have to create one. There is no need for a 'gun bracelet', because there is no crisis there either. The 'bad guy takes the gun away from the trembling woman and shoots her with it' is pure Hollywood nonsense.
Requiring a gun owner to put on a bracelet in the middle of the night so his weapon will fire is liberal absurdity at its best.Are these bracelet come in watch size and comfort and for mean drunks too.
I'm not anti anything, never voted because they both seem to be the same, 2 parties, lots to choose there.mmmm.
Good point but not relevant to the current conversation. We can belabor your point if you wish and I believe your point is that no legislation to limit the purchase of weapons by criminals will curb the violence. I believe your last post mentioned something about arming the police with automatic weapons and killing on the spot any offenders that challenge them with a gun or other weapon. Further innocent lives that may be lost as a result would be acceptable because the end result would justify the means? Did you really means this or were you just joking as some others stated?
By the way welcome back to the conversation, I hope all is well with you.You pretty well know my stand, handguns are useless until you want to kill something.
You kill someone , it's game over, no more playing of any kind.All is good - just out of town a few days with no internet.
Yes, I vaguely remember that conversation (too lazy to look it up) that cops should immediately shoot to kill when a gun is sighted - a ridiculous solution to a ridiculous question as I recall. Certainly not meant to be taken seriously.WillStarr wrote:
“99.998% of the legally owned guns in the US will never be used to shoot anyone, so why would you punish the law-abiding?
So what do you propose that would actually work? Tell us what law you would pass that you guarantee will stop criminals from committing gun murders.”
This was your reply to WillStarr
"Issue all cops a fully automatic SAW and shoot to kill orders at the first sign of a gun. It will go a long way towards stopping gun murders, even if it won't affect the overall murder rate.
You'll have some collateral damage but, hey, the rate of gun murders will fall and victims of stabbings, car bombs, bludgeonings and other weapons can take solace in that they were never shot. And we could reasonably expect the collateral damage to ease off to only a few thousand per year after a few years of shooting anyone with a gun.
It will work in reducing the number of guns out there, and a few thousand innocent lives each year is a cheap price to pay for that!"Wow, issue fully automantic SAW guns to kill. Already this is a Police State that kills more people than the bad guys do.
What next after that, a swift kick in the balls for parking tickets and jay walking.
"This trial wreaked of injustice as Zimmerman told his story to the all white jury of women as the only eye witness."
(sigh)
George Zimmerman did not tell ' his story to the all white jury of women', because he did not testify. You didn't even get that part right!(Heavy Sigh) Why can't you think beyond the literal. No he did not testify but his lawyer did tell the story! Now does that make you happy. And that is why the trial was fraught with deception. What did Zimmerman fear he would say on the stand? We shall never know as he hid behind his lawyers spin of the events. Recent events in his life show what an idiot he is and bears the take on his stupid behavior.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said from the beginning that the Zimmerman incident was a simple case of self defense, that the prosecution had no case, that it was politically motivated, and that Zimmerman would be acquitted.
He was right on all counts. You are wrong on all counts.
Case closed.
Literally.As I said with one witness we will never know. The first thing anyone should do when they commit a crime is to make sure there are no witness's. Zimmerman at least got that right. And obviously the case isn't closed as you still defend a murderer because he told a one sided story. Sorry to disappoint you but juries don't always get it right and who cares what Alan Dershowitz had to say. You quote somebody from the OJ Simpson debacle? Wow, now I really know your point is mute.
rhamson
I don't think your right,
I think your more balancedAs is your choice and that is what makes this country great. You see it your way and I see it mine and I respect that. What I have a problem with is flawed thought based on shaky analysis of the facts. Then armed with that the person tries to convince me I am wrong in exploring different avenues to rectify the problem. In the meantime they have no clear answer. How ridiculous that is.
From my studing of human history the better answers are more often in the middle, making adjustments. When extremes go at it, more often the solutions take longer.
"As I said with one witness we will never know."
On the contrary, there were several witnesses and Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman.
"The first thing anyone should do when they commit a crime is to make sure there are no witness's. Zimmerman at least got that right."
Obviously he did no such thing. There were several witnesses.
"And obviously the case isn't closed as you still defend a murderer because he told a one sided story."
A non-sequitur. Look it up
"Sorry to disappoint you but juries don't always get it right and who cares what Alan Dershowitz had to say. You quote somebody from the OJ Simpson debacle? Wow, now I really know your point is mute."
The word is 'moot', not mute, and the case is very much closed as we are protected from double jeopardy in the US.
You obviously don't have any of your facts right on this case and know very little about it. Your claims have all been rebutted one by one.
And BTW, I'll take Dershowitz's very scholarly and respected opinion over yours any day. You obviously have neither the credentials nor the chops.I will tell you what. Lets just agree to disagree. You are reading transcripts from some other trial as they don't match anything in the public record and your rebuttals are far from factual. Where you really lost me is when you chose to put stock in a slimebag lawyer that's duty is to cloud the facts and taint the evidence to get his client off. No not George but OJ (because I wouldn't want you to lose your train of thought). I thank you for ignoring me again.
First you say:
"I will tell you what. Lets just agree to disagree."
But then you ignore your own words with this little diatribe:
"You are reading transcripts from some other trial as they don't match anything in the public record and your rebuttals are far from factual. Where you really lost me is when you chose to put stock in a slimebag lawyer that's duty is to cloud the facts and taint the evidence to get his client off. No not George but OJ (because I wouldn't want you to lose your train of thought). I thank you for ignoring me again."
It is a lawyer's sworn duty to present a good defense for his client, even if that client is not a nice guy. That does not make the lawyer a 'slimebag'. However, I'm not surprised that you didn't know that, since there are so many things you obviously do not know.
I'm also not surprised that you did not know that there were several witnesses to the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin, because you obviously have an agenda and little to no interest in the truth.The altercation has nothing to do with who picked the fight. Zimmerman clearly chased Martin and when the confrontation took place one of them wound up dead. Martin did not know who the assailant was and he was in a fight for his life. Zimmerman was told to not follow him by the dispatcher. If you have ever been in a fight you would know that there is no telling how far the other person is willing to take the fight therefore it is a fight to the finish. Your argument is ridiculous and the officer of the court dribble is as there are many death row convicts who have been railroaded into a death sentence because of unscrupulous tactics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0oyDFS4Jo
Have a listen to the recording of that night and see who pursued who to lead up to the confrontation. Did Martin beat the hell out of Zimmerman? Yeah but who was the first to stand his ground you have to ask yourself. When cornered Martin was in it to save his own life. Your take on this is ludicrous to say the least.
Back to the topic:
There is no gun crisis and no justification for the Eric Holder/Barack Obama bracelet nonsense.
Most gun deaths are suicides, and no one has proved to me that taking away guns will stop people from being suicidal. That's nonsense. The highest suicide rate in the world is in Japan where guns are almost unknown.
Most gun homicides are young blacks and Hispanics killing other young blacks and Hispanics, and again, no one can show me how disarming law abiding citizens will stop ghetto and Barrio crime. In fact, merely pointing out who is killing whom is deemed racist, because that slaughter is supposed to be a secret that liberals are willfully hiding because they can't or won't stop it.
The hysteria over thousands of children being accidentally killed by firearms is not only a myth, it's a damn lie! According to the CDC records in the last year recorded, accidental firearm deaths ages 1 through 12 was just 42.
42.
42 out of a population of 100,000,000 children is an unbelievably tiny percentage, but it's still 42 too many and we are working on improving even that.
There is no gun crisis. There's a minority crisis to be sure, but liberal have little to no interest in that.This is not complicated. Zimmerman saw a suspicious looking character and called 911. During that call, the dispatcher told Zimmerman to let them know what Martin was doing. I suspect that's why he got out and tried to keep him in sight. After the dispatcher told Zimmerman that he did not need him to follow Martin, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and started back to his truck. That's when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Now that's what came out in the trial, so if you choose to believe some other and unsubstantiated scenario, that's up to you.
In the timeline, from the moment Zimmerman lost sight of Martin until Martin confronted him, Trayvon Martin had more than enough time to simply walk home. Instead, like many macho young teens, he decided to confront Zimmerman and beat the hell out of him. After all, he liked to fight. But this time, it got him killed.
The moral of the story is to avoid a confrontation if at all possible.
All that is in the court record, so your opinion is not worth a bucket of warm spit.I'm sure glad the other Super Power in the world today is "Global Pubic Opinion"
The America MilItary and Prison Complex Super POWER is fast loosing their ground. Who want to live in fear of a fool with a Gun or Nukes anymore.
Why are bullets shaped like a small penis?"Why are bullets shaped like a small penis?"
Seriously?It's liberal psycho-babble...if you are a gun owner, it's because you have a small penis.
I'm not sure what they say about a female gun owner.Well, if you want to get technical, women do have a "small penis." The functionality is entirely different, but it's there.
I have to agree.
The debate has really taken a downward turn in quality. . .
Well it is complete now. You have selective hearing as well as selective understanding. I can't help you as your bias has seriously impeded your ability to discern the reading materials and what your ears hear. Please continue to ignore me as you stated "EVERYBODY" does at the beginning of our journey through the fantasy you call facts.
I gave you the facts of the case as gleaned from the trial records. Those facts were why the jury ruled self defense and found Zimmerman not guilty.
In turn, you gave us hyperbole, personal insults, and another tantrum.
I reserve the right to correct you when needed. You don't need to thank me.You can hide behind all the information "gleaned" from your studies and you haven't proved one thing.
Let me break it down for you as nobody seems to want to talk about the Pink Elephant" in the room. This is a colossal failure for the concealed carry proponents (a cops nightmare). Why you may ask? Because you have a cop wannabe who has reported as much as fifty other "suspicious characters" targeting a kid armed with Skittles and a bottle of iced tea, walking home from the convenience store in his fathers home neighborhood. The wannabe makes a another call to the police who respond by saying they are on the way, (his neighborhood watch duty ends at that point) and proceeds to ignore the police dispatcher and follows Martin. Martin then having realized he is being followed not by the police but a stranger in a truck decides to run away from the situation having done nothing to provoke the stranger who says he has something in his waist band (baggy pants need to be pulled up once in a while). Based on what evidence we shall never know and absolutely not based on any training such as a police officer, the next thing we know is there is an altercation in someone's back yard. Why in somebodies back yard you may ask? Who knows but you would have us believe it was to attack Zimmerman who ran after him there. Logic would make a case of either hiding was on Martins mind or he did not know there was no escape having only been in the neighborhood a short time. The next thing we know is that someone is getting beat up with a gunshot at the end. Martin is dead and we only have Zimmerman's take of the events after he chased Martin. You have nothing more than that. As far as witness's (which are highly unreliable as proven in so many courtrooms) the events are pieced together by a defense attorney.
Why are you changing the events to fit your point. Because the Pink Elephant of concealed carry was the thing that resulted in an end to an INNOCENT persons life. You can argue it any way you like that a jury exonerated Zimmerman when in effect there was only one story that exonerated him, his. We see how unreliable his tips were and a willful disregard he has for police instruction as well as a conniving personality (his bond was revoked for misleading statements on his assets to pay his bond) that questions whether he related any truth (remember he is the witness) regardless of the outcome.
This stinks from jump and the only reason after many weak arguments about officers of the court, jury results of six white women, and if the victim was a punk do not conceal what your biggest fear is and that is the concealed carry issue that sparked this whole fiasco of your diatribe into your loosely and manipulated "facts".
Sorry my friend it is a good tactic to confront the issue head on but to taint the opponent with innuendo and forgone conclusions is weak. As all you are doing is exposing your real motive which is in line with most gun advocates and especially concealed carry and that is to fight to the bitter end beyond logic and ethics anyone questioning the rights of a gun owner. Sorry but you lose with your ridiculous argument.On the contrary, I do win because the jury saw it the way I saw it, not your way.
I'm just amazed that a seemingly smart guy like you would simply dismiss all the known evidence and even the witness's statements if they don't fit your anti-gun agenda. Your entire diatribe is based entirely on your own personal biases and your desired outcome. If a fact doesn't fit your tortured 'logic', you simply pretend it does not exist.
With that, I'm not at all surprised that you see 'pink elephants'. Not surprised at all.I love the way you "try" to debunk everything with a finger pointing the other way. A weak defense at best and makes no point whatsoever. Even when logic gob smacks you in the face you continue on with your delusions. As has been stated many ways and many times, a jury is not the proof of truth! It is merely a group of your pears deciding your fate. Zimmerman was the only witness to the murder so it weighed heavily on the jurors mind and the opposite was not provable. Did it go down like that? Only Zimmerman knows for sure. It does not prove that he didn't do something wrong in the process as the mitigating circumstances were embellished by the defense in the consideration of his fate. The prosecution was lazy and inept as happens a lot in these cases (OJ and Casey Anthony as examples). Have you ever served on a jury? Have you ever been on a ride along with the police? I hope you get the chance as it will enlighten you and open your eyes wide open to what really goes down rather than the digested screwed up mess that comes out in the end. No my friend you have not proven a thing nor won anything as you have to experience a little more life to "get" what I am talking about. Mind you that is not age specific.
Do you feel that massive spin and attempts to misguide and give wrong impressions is the proper way to communicate?
Because:
1) "cop wannabe" is rather derogatory, for no discernible reason.
2) Listing what Martin was armed with, AFTER it became knowledge but before Zimmerman could possibly know is a nice touch.
3) Mentioning it is his father's home neighborhood but failing to mention Martin doesn't live there and was unknown to habituate the area is also a nice touch. A little (lot) misrepresentative of the facts, but that's all right.
4) Back yard? I've lived in many houses and never once had a sidewalk in the back yard that I could slam a head into. Are you sure of this, or just spreading rumors?
5) Nothing "exonerated" Zimmerman, and to imply he needed "exoneration" is a gross miscarriage of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty".
6) To insinuate Zimmerman was guilty even after one of the best prosecutors in the country failed to prove it, by claiming that officers of the court had weak arguments, Martin was a punk and the jury was the wrong sex is a little beyond the pale, don't you think? But it's all about insinuation and emotion, not fact, to some people...1) "cop wannabe" is rather derogatory, for no discernible reason.
This was a term used by the prosecution you so eloquently praise.
2) Listing what Martin was armed with, AFTER it became knowledge but before Zimmerman could possibly know is a nice touch.
A cop could discern the difference. Oh wait Zimmerman was not a cop and was told to stand down. The results clearly speak for themselves.
3) Mentioning it is his father's home neighborhood but failing to mention Martin doesn't live there and was unknown to habituate the area is also a nice touch. A little (lot) misrepresentative of the facts, but that's all right.
I thought your comprehensive skills were a wee bit better than that. There is a reason I called it his father's neighborhood. Get it? Being his fathers neighborhood meant he did not live there.
4) Back yard? I've lived in many houses and never once had a sidewalk in the back yard that I could slam a head into. Are you sure of this, or just spreading rumors?
Listen to the recording as the witness's who called it in referred to the incident taking place in their back yard. Have a listen for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0oyDFS4Jo
5) Nothing "exonerated" Zimmerman, and to imply he needed "exoneration" is a gross miscarriage of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty".
Ridiculous. He shot an unarmed man. Thus exoneration was needed to prove his innocence because he was initially let go and then arrested there was a shadow cast over his story.
6) To insinuate Zimmerman was guilty even after one of the best prosecutors in the country failed to prove it, by claiming that officers of the court had weak arguments, Martin was a punk and the jury was the wrong sex is a little beyond the pale, don't you think? But it's all about insinuation and emotion, not fact, to some people...
And the opposite be true of the concealed carry advocates that are scared any admission of wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part could impair their rights to concealed carry. Where are you in the middle of this? Justice for all or just the one's that deserve it.The prosecution uses it in an effort to affect emotions and that means it is not derogatory? Or that you aren't trying to do the same thing?
"A cop could discern the difference" From a block away, on a dark rainy night? BS - even you cannot possibly believe that.
"There is a reason I called it his father's neighborhood. Get it? Being his fathers neighborhood meant he did not live there" Sorry - I lived in my father's neighborhood for some 19 years. Most people do, and will NOT pick up that "father's neighborhood" means they don't live there. Or maybe I'm just stupid.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If it has anything to do with the terrible GUN thing, one is automatically guilty until proven innocent?
All in all, thought, a right nice spin job. You should look into politics.Sorry if I called the murderer a cop wannabe. Maybe he would prefer it to having to live with his lies and the murder of an innocent unarmed boy.
As far as a cop discerning whether or not Martin was packing, I would rather trust the training and experience of a real cop and that he would have handled it a lot better than a citizens watch idiot that shot an innocent boy even after being told to stop following him. Maybe procedure and experience was behind the order as a precaution from something happening with an untrained idiot. See a recurring theme here? Zimmerman killed an unarmed boy. Let me say it again in case you did not understand. Zimmerman killed an unarmed boy.
" Sorry - I lived in my father's neighborhood for some 19 years. Most people do, and will NOT pick up that "father's neighborhood" means they don't live there. Or maybe I'm just stupid."
I am sorry if my articulation of the exact neighborhood was unclear to you but I wanted to get the point across that he was not as familiar with the place as if it was where he lived for a lengthy time. Don't be so hard on yourself. I know you were just looking to pick apart my answer.
Zimmerman was presumed innocent and given the benefit of the doubt by getting bail (which he screwed up) and a trial as he was guaranteed by the Constitution. Does that mean he was innocent? Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining if you believe a jury gets it right all the time. This has nothing to do with the gun as somehow you believe that is my implication. Zimmerman lawfully owned the gun so what's the problem? He pursued a self proclaimed suspect, tracked him down and whoops the suspect got killed. The gun was only the finishing touch in how screwed up he made the situation.
As far as politics I don't know. Maybe I do have a flair in there somewhere but I know you would be good at writing fiction.
"Zimmerman was the only witness to the murder so it weighed heavily on the jurors mind and the opposite was not provable. Did it go down like that? Only Zimmerman knows for sure."
That is why we assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution failed to do that.
In any case, I'm glad you finally admitted that you really don't know what happened or whether or not Zimmerman was guilty.
Now don't you feel better?
" It is merely a group of your pears deciding your fate."
Better than a group of your apples or your bananas I suppose.
(Or did you mean a jury of your 'peers'?)"That is why we assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution failed to do that."
It is a shame you still don't get it and twisting phrases to accomplish it is disingenuous at best. I am sorry for you.
"In any case, I'm glad you finally admitted that you really don't know what happened or whether or not Zimmerman was guilty.
Now don't you feel better?"
Admit what? The fact that the murderer got away with it. Really still twisting I see. Once again I am sorry for your take on this. I hope that if wronged in the future nothing like this would happen to you or your loved ones.
"Better than a group of your apples or your bananas I suppose.
(Or did you mean a jury of your 'peers'?)"
If you are on the right side of ducking a murder charge I guess. I am amazed at how bias your opinions are with a murderer let loose. But I guess if it comes to protecting YOUR rights all comes out well in the wash for you.
"...the murder of an innocent unarmed boy."
I'm curious. Are you denying that Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman with a sucker punch? Are you denying that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?
If so, where's your evidence? And if Trayvon did throw the first punch, would you still claim he was 'innocent'?
BTW, when you are using a concrete sidewalk as an anvil in an attempt to crush someone's skull, you have armed yourself with that concrete, in the same way you would arm yourself with a convenient rock or a hammer. And do I also have to point out that Trayvon Martin armed himself with that concrete before he knew that Zimmerman was armed?
I would appreciate some direct answers this time around.I'm curious. Are you denying that Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman with a sucker punch? Are you denying that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?
So it comes down to once cornered and fearing for his life who threw the first punch? Who cares! George Zimmerman set the wheels in motion for that innocent boys murder when he labeled him a suspect (with his vast years of police experience ) And followed him against the directions of the police dispatcher. Martin ran away if you recall. It was only after Zimmerman caught up to Martin when the altercation began. How was Martin to know who Zimmerman was and what harm he intended? If Martin threw the first punch what does it matter? He was a scared boy making the best decisions he was equipped to make given his maturity level. On the other hand Zimmerman a 28 year old man, vested with the responsibility as a neighborhood watchman, was supposed to act more responsibly and cut off his pursuit as he was directed to. What authority was Zimmerman acting under? Certainly not the police, and if not the police, the neighborhood watch group after being told to not follow Martin?
BTW, when you are using a concrete sidewalk as an anvil in an attempt to crush someone's skull, you have armed yourself with that concrete, in the same way you would arm yourself with a convenient rock or a hammer. And do I also have to point out that Trayvon Martin armed himself with that concrete before he knew that Zimmerman was armed?
A ridiculous argument if ever I heard one. A street fight has rules? The guy that just chased you down for no apparent reason deserves the right to throw the first punch kind of etiquette thing? Were they marking off twenty paces or waiting for the ding of the bell to come out swinging? What kind of identification did Zimmerman give Martin? Did he show him a badge? Maybe a photo ID? Have you ever been in a fight that you felt was for your life? You grab a 2x4, or a rock or something more than your opponent.
I would appreciate some direct answers this time around.
The only person that can answer your questions directly is guess who? Zimmerman, and he isn't talking. Why should he? He got away with murder."Fearing for his life"? By coming back and starting a fight? Not hardly.
Who cares? The law cares. Meaning the people of the United States.
"caught up to Martin"? You mean when Martin doubled back and caught up to Zimmerman?
Martin doesn't need to know who Zimmerman is - he just needed to go home instead of coming back to assault him.
A civvie telling Zimmerman what to do carries no more weight than it would if YOU told him. And the 911 dispatcher is not a police member. Just another civilian.
Zimmerman doesn't need anyone's "authority" to walk down the street. Not even yours.
The guy that chased you down? You ARE referring to Martin, catching up with Zimmerman on the way back to his truck, right?
Zimmerman is under no requirement to give ID any more than Martin was (and if either one had done so there would not have been a corpse that night).
No, I have never started a fight where I was in fear for my life. Unlike Martin, I've never been that stupid.
Zimmerman already talked. And told the only story you will ever hear - do you expect him to now recant and say "Oh yes, rhamson was right all along and I ambushed that poor little boy, shooting him down in cold blood from behind"?Ridiculous. You cherry pick things to try and contradict in an all or nothing scenario. You don't address the main topic and wind your way through a series of innuendo to make some point. There is so much conjecture based on the only eyewitness telling the story who happens to be the murderer. Am I to accept that he is telling the truth as he is on the hot seat for the murder. There is testimony that refutes what you claim and there is the phone calls that set it up that don't jive with your assertions. You raise too many fallacies to even begin to address them.
Bottom line is George Zimmerman the murderer got away with murder.No, YOU cherry picked. I just responded to each and every one of your ridiculous comments.
You don't have a choice except to accept it as truth - that's the way our justice system works. Unless you are making up your own system, whereby rhamson is judge, jury and executioner without ever having been there or witnessed what happened?
And no, the bottom line is that Zimmerman was determined by a jury of his peers to be innocent of murder. Rhamson declares different, but of course rhamson is not a part of the justice system and doesn't care what the law is.Your nanny-nanny-boo-boo pointing the finger back at me just shows how ridiculous your claims are.
Bang on your chest all that you wish. It does not prove the justice system is infallible in this country. What it does prove that given the right attorney, the right story and the right jury you can get away with murder in this country. And George Zimmerman murdered an innocent boy that rainy night in Florida.
"The guy that chased you down? You ARE referring to Martin, catching up with Zimmerman on the way back to his truck, right?"
Exactly. After the dispatcher advised Zimmerman (he had no authority to order anyone to do anything because he was not a cop!) that they did not need him to follow Martin, Zimmerman started back to his truck as is clearly indicated on the 911 recording. At that point Zimmerman was no longer following Martin and all Martin had to do was walk a few feet to his home. Instead, he chose to follow and confront Zimmerman, a foolish act that cost him his life.
That's the part that rhamson ignores, because it proves him wrong."She heard Trayvon running and could hear the wind. Trayvon said that he lost the guy. Then, he told her the guy was coming closer to him. She heard Trayvon say “Why you following me for?” An old man said, “What are you doing around here?”
This was the witness testimony about the confrontation. She kind of left out the part about him hiding in the bushes. Because it did not happen.
I could go on all day throwing bombs at your theories, yes theories as they are based on one persons testimony. The murderer George Zimmerman1) This woman is a confirmed liar, having perjured herself twice while under oath.
2) She also claimed she could hear the sound of wet grass over the phone. You and I both know better than that.
We do know from the 911 transcript that Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck, after the 911 operator advised him that he did not need to follow Martin. After he ended the call, Martin confronted and attacked him.So you now believe one liar over another kid who gave poor testimony because of confusion. Once again selective reasoning on your part. The pathetic thing is that you really do believe this crap. I have showed you time and time again loose ends and deception in this case and you either don't address it, don't believe it or demonize the person who said it all the while upholding a murderers account of the events in trying to avoid a conviction. There was so much the jury was not allowed to hear because of the defense attorneys well orchestrated presentation that the jury had half the case at hand to make a verdict. Even if I could come up with a picture showing proof of Zimmerman's willful disregard and ultimate mistake you would not believe it.
"And no, the bottom line is that Zimmerman was determined by a jury of his peers to be innocent of murder. Rhamson declares different, but of course rhamson is not a part of the justice system and doesn't care what the law is."
Like so many others who wanted the evil white guy found guilty, he's in denial and doesn't care what a jury decided after hearing all the evidence. He wants Zimmerman to be guilty and that's that.Not so much wants, but has declared him guilty without having the faintest notion (or care) if it is true or not.
But he's not alone - a great many people in this country would hang Zimmerman out to dry, lock him away forever, because a black "kid" attacked him and was pounding his head into mush. Enough reason to convict in too many minds.I don't know about Zimmerman case.
One time a cop had cocked his gun at my head, because he thought we had drugs. He was so upset, I'm sure he would have killed me, If I did not convince him (in Spanish) he would loose his job if he killed me.I knew the racial thing was an undertone with you. Thank you for clearing this up. Much makes sense now.
There was a racial "undertone" to this case from the time the network modified and spun the 911 call to insinuate Zimmerman was concerned about color (remember that? He was asked the color but the question was deleted from the record when it was put on the air).
If you go back to previous threads here, you will find several posters claiming Zimmerman did whatever it is he did because Martin was black; were he white Zimmerman would not have followed him. The same sentiment was found all over the web and even in print.
So yes, there was a definite, nasty undertone of racism. One that I argued against for hours until I gave up; a racist will not change their mind based on reason.
"There was so much the jury was not allowed to hear because of the defense attorneys well orchestrated presentation that the jury had half the case at hand to make a verdict."
Like what? What evidence was the jury not allowed to hear?Apparently the part that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
Odd that one of the best prosecutors in the country allowed that to happen, isn't it?I can't help you if your reading on the trial was limited to what you draw your conclusions from. Perhaps a comprehensive study may open your eyes to the whole trial. You have a block when it comes to my explanations so if you are curious as to the other side of the story I suggest you investigate it further on your own. I am done with trying to help you. you are lost in this.
The Martin/Zimmerman case was a bellwether to excited liberals because they thought it would prove once and for all that:
1) White men are racist pigs
and that
2) The right to keep and bear arms is a license to murder and ought to be repealed.
That's why they were so enraged and in denial after a jury heard both the evidence and the arguments and decided that Zimmerman was viciously attacked by Martin and that he shot him in self defense.
Most Americans now believe that the new racism is not white on black at all. According to a recent poll, the new racism is black on white, and that is supported by blacks:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _hispanics
While is true that over 50% of the victims of gun murders today are young black males, their killers are not whites at all. Their killers are other young black males. a fact that liberals do not like to discuss.
Anti-Second Amendment liberals cannot support their arguments with statistics, facts, and evidence, so they rely on baseless hyperbole and emotional appeals, as we have seen here,"While is true that over 50% of the victims of gun murders today are young black males, their killers are not whites at all. Their killers are other young black males. a fact that liberals do not like to discuss."
Beware of the race card. You've stepped over the line, and a liberal might just call you some names for pointing out a statistical truth.
If we could address this issue, our murder rate, drug usage, and incarceration rates would all improve while helping people get out of financial turmoil. Instead, we blame it on guns and avoid the real issues.Hi, Education answer,
The black on back slaughter going on in our nation's inner cities is a national disgrace, not just because it's happening, but because we as a country are largely ignoring it, and we are ignoring it because pointing it out is indeed considered racist.
That is where political correctness has brought us. Young black males are dying needlessly because we are afraid to speak up lest we be labeled 'racist'.
You are right of course. I have already been called a racist for criticizing us, as a nation, for ignoring the misery, poverty, and death that awaits blacks who are not fortunate enough to escape the ghetto culture of sex, drugs, out of wedlock births, and early death.
So be it. I will not be silent.
"There was so much the jury was not allowed to hear because of the defense attorneys well orchestrated presentation that the jury had half the case at hand to make a verdict."
Like what? What evidence was the jury not allowed to hear?
"I can't help you if your reading on the trial was limited to what you draw your conclusions from. Perhaps a comprehensive study may open your eyes to the whole trial. You have a block when it comes to my explanations so if you are curious as to the other side of the story I suggest you investigate it further on your own. I am done with trying to help you. you are lost in this."
In other words, you can't come up with any evidence that the jury was not allowed to hear. All you have are your own beliefs based on your own, very biased opinion. Like so many others, you want Zimmerman to be guilty no matter what.
Got it.You have a funny way of looking at things. Nothing I have given you holds up to your retorts of liar, twister of facts and put-ons so the comprehension I was hoping for was that you would investigate all the facts for yourself. But now I see that is too much to ask. If you mean you are too lazy to find out for yourself then I guess you did "Get It".
Except that I never called you any of those names or anything else. I simply stated the facts of the case as we know them, while you gave us nothing but your own, very biased opinion.
You've been called, but you're not holding any cards at all so you're trying to bluff your way out. It's not working.
Like the state of Florida, you have accused George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin. In our country, the burden of proof rests on the accusers, which would be Florida, or in this case, you.
So prove it with hard evidence, or admit that all you really have is a burning hate for Zimmerman and incoherent blather in lieu of evidence, because so far, that's all you have presented .
Florida failed to prove it, and so have you.In the end, there is no gun crisis in America. Almost 70% of all gun murders are confined to the inner cities with their gangs, drugs, and crimes. That's the real crisis, but politicians simply look the other way.
Contrary to the common belief stirred up by the left, we are actually over twice as likely to be assaulted on the streets of the UK than we are in America. Contrary to leftist hyperbole, blood does not run in US streets.. . .but guns sure make a great scapegoat, a great talking point to garner votes.
Occupational and corporate crime I thought was my everyday concern and 95% of the total crime. When I open the door to outside I hear crickets
When you open the door to the streets outside, you need a gun because in your world 70% of the crime in the streetsIt sounds like you're very happy where you live. Great. You don't want guns, and that's your right.
We're very happy where we live. Most Americans want guns, and that's our right.I've often wondered why non-Americans presume to lecture Americans. Their air of superiority is based on sheer fantasy, because all of them look to America as the leader of the free world.
"I've often wondered why non-Americans presume to lecture Americans.
I agree. It's not like you see a lot of Americans lecturing people from other countries about how they should have fewer gun restrictions.I've encountered lots of Canadians, Australians, and Brits who love to lecture Americans, but I've never seen an American lecturing any of them on anything. We respect their right to conduct their own affairs in their own way, and are puzzled by their obvious obsession with Americans and America. But when confronted with that, they lamely claim they have the right to meddle, although they never explain why.
Oh, you're funny.
I'm pretty sure the folks who live in Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden...well, just all of Scandinavia in general would like to have a word with you, especially considering they have far more personal and social freedoms than we here in the U.S. have ever had.I once did most of my art and entertainment business in the USA. Traveled every state except Alaska.
Then my work permits were taken away because I refused a (bigger gun) GW Bush a war sculpture.
Your with us or your with the terrorist , he claims in broad daylight
Related Discussions
- 21
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?
by MR Black 12 years ago
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?With the regular stories of young men shooting and killing peope, even in high school our kids are not safe. To keep the gun industry alive many claims gun don't kill people, people do. Well if there was no guns who could...
- 1302
Gun Control
by lesliebyars 12 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
- 53
Politics, Fear, Guns and Gun Controls
by Dan Harmon 12 years ago
Given that:1. The US has a very high homicide rate.2. It is possible that killers that can't find a gun will use a different method.3. Some other countries, with low gun ownership rates, have a lower gun homicide rate but a much higher murder rate using other methods.4. If...
- 93
If gun laws are passed, how will the government, take guns away?
by Michele Travis 5 years ago
Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out, and how could the government actually take guns away from people?
- 81
310 million guns in America: Conservatives say Government takes guns!
by Credence2 9 years ago
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/ … n-america/I know that we have beaten this gun issue like a dead horse, but that number is startling. That is almost a gun for every man, woman and child in America.Yet, conservatives tell me that if guns were registered, subject to background check,...
- 25
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 7 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?