Gun Control - California Style
States who care about their citizens finally have a roadmap on how to hold the people who will sell a gun to just anybody to account. This is thanks to Texas and their oppressive, demeaning anti-choice law.
California is passing a law, which Gov Newsom will sign, that allows "Californians to sue “anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” for damages — the same injunction-skirting mechanism Texas has used to ban all abortions after six weeks, which has so far been permitted by the Supreme Court.".
https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625 … reme-court
Maybe it will help stop tragic incidents like this killing of a little 9-year girl by a civilian shooting at the wrong car after being robbed.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/us/houst … index.htmlThe gun problem is endemic in America but I have a bit of a doubt about this proviso for damages. There is a need for a clear-cut law that makes using a gun without cause a criminal offense to be prosecuted by the state. In case of damages, The onus of filing the case will be on the person concerned and the government has nothing to do with it. In that respect, I don't think it's a very good thing because that case could continue for years and net result is not what is expected.
No question it is endemic, it has been throughout our history. Keep in mind, they are using the same Texas law to prevent pregnancy termination, often before the mother knows she is pregnant.
I don't know if you are for or against the Texas law, but be consistent.
If I sell an ordinary rifle to someone and they then paint it black with a $2 spray can, could I then be sued for selling that dreaded "assault rifle"?
??Really?? I'm not the one declaring that a common hunting rifle is a military grade "assault rifle", commonly used to assault enemy positions. I'm not the one giving that lie, but I'm being ridiculous.
We'll have to disagree on that one. The entire "assault weapon" was ridiculous from the day it was started, but has proven most useful in scaring people into joining the ignorant herd on gun controls.
(While the spray paint doesn't count, although it's all that's needed for the majority of people, if I use a hose clamp to stick a 6" pipe pointing down in front of the trigger it is an "assault weapon" under California law. Or if it has a telescoping stock so it can fit more people. And yes, that is ridiculous.)Neither am I nor is California So why did you bring it up?
Yes, assault rifles should be banned like they were before which saved many lives until Conservatives let the ban lapse.Banning those fake "assault rifles" saved not a single life. The bigger question is why you are promoting that lie?
Seems to me you are conflating regular hunting rifles painted black and AR-15s and similar weapons of war.
So no, I am not promoting any lie (which you didn't define, btw), but the TRUTH. There is no reasonable purpose for people to possess weapons of war (with a few exceptions).
I hope the new Californian Legislation has some beneficial impact, but as guns are endemic in America I’m rather sceptical that it will make much difference?
In the UK guns are not the issue, as they are illegal anyway; the main problem in the UK is knives, albeit not on the same scale as guns in the USA. The UK Government’s website on the subject of knifes (and related weapons) e.g. batons and blowpipes etc., spells out in detail what’s illegal in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives.I don't know. The Texas anti-women law has shut down all abortions in that state. California is hoping it might have the same impact on the kinds of guns they are trying to get off the street.
Hey, lol, UK-type weapons don't count as weapons in the eyes of those defending or denying the Jan 6 insurrection.Yeah, a different world: Even making a wooden replica of a gun and painting it to look real is illegal in the UK.
Under Section 36 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 it is an offence to manufacture, import or sale realistic imitation firearms. It is also an offence to modify an imitation firearm to make it a realistic imitation firearm. Under the act the definition of ‘Realistic Imitation Firearms’ is: “An imitation firearm is “anything which has the appearance of being a firearm …., whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile”.
The nearest equivalent in the UK to the NRA in the USA is the UKARA, although in comparison UKARA is a little cuddly kitten compared to the ferocious big bad monster of the NRA:-
What Is UKARA? - VCRA and Realistic Imitation Firearms: https://youtu.be/TapSaSejU2MAnd as a result, of course, the UK doesn't have nearly the rate of violent crimes that lead to death as America does.
It would be real interesting to see you attempt to prove that statement, particularly as statistics very plainly show zero correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate.
It's just another lie promoted by ignorant people that can't think or read.The data is out there and published. I have used snippets of it in my own work on guns.
I am sure Nathan will be able to do a much better job than I can in giving you all of the gory detail.Yes. So have I. And any and all data "proving" that fewer guns means fewer deaths contain the phrase "gun deaths" rather than deaths.
Which doesn't even come close to proving that fewer guns means fewer deaths; it only proves that fewer guns means fewer bodies with bullet holes in them.
Which you know and understand very well - the question then is why you are repeating a lie that anyone researching quickly understands is not true?I have already proved that with this series - http://hub.me/ajSeW (I see I need to back and fix a few typos as well as look to see if there is more data available - remember, Conservatives are doing a good job at suppressing it) to update the charts with. I also need to make some of the explanations clearer.)
I read, as I recall, one of the early hubs in your series. Again, as I recall, you stated there was no statistical correlation (let alone causal relationship) between gun ownership and the homicide rate.
Now this one says "This actually agrees with my results from the statistical analyses in the previous parts to the series which found that, while close, the rate of gun ownership (as well as regulation strength) and the rate of homicides is not statistically significant enough (it was close, but no cigar) to say with some certainty that "more guns = more homicides".
This is exactly what I said. Without a statistical correlation, how can you possibly say, with honesty, that taking guns away will reduce homicides? All of your studies say the opposite (although the previous one did say that you believe there is a strong correlation even though you showed there wasn't); why do you say gun ownership is not only correlated but causal?You are right, not a strong one anyway (I wonder if that won't change given there is five more years of data and the surge in gun ownership and the surge in gun violence). What I DID say was that there is a strong relationship between lax gun safety regulations and death by gun.
Granted, I set out to prove the relationship with gun violence as well, but I couldn't QUITE get there - and I said so, didn't I?
You all "claim" I am dishonest and closed minded in my analysis of what I observer, yet here I wasn't. I could have easily fudged the figures, but I didn't and I reported the results even though it didn't fit my preconceived notion. Why would I be thorough and honest here (when it would be easy not to be but dishonest in your eyes everywhere else? The answer is, I am not. I try to take the same amount of care when I discuss other things as I did with that study and my book on recessions. So, if I am not being dishonest, then are you guys being dishonest in claiming I am? Just asking.
I can say it using common sense. What if there were zero guns in the US. I think you can logical conclude there would also be zero homicides using guns.
(And NO, the homicide rate using other means WILL NOT increase to make for those who weren't killed by guns. I showed that in one of the parts regarding suicides.)
Where have I EVER said owning a gun CAUSES people to kill with it?
What I show is that the easier it is for the public to obtain guns, the rate of death by guns goes up.Again, you are confirming what I said; that your entire argument is based on gun homicides rather than the homicide rate. There are no more bodies when there are more guns, just more bodies with bullet holes in them.
"and I said so, didn't I? "
You did. And then said that you thought it had to be there even though your stats showed it wasn't.
"(And NO, the homicide rate using other means WILL NOT increase to make for those who weren't killed by guns."
If so then reducing the number of guns would produce a reduction in homicides overall, but if that were true you would absolutely see a very strong correlation in gun ownership rates vs homicide rates. It isn't there, which says that your claim is not true.
"What I show is that the easier it is for the public to obtain guns, the rate of death by guns goes up."
Again, the more guns the more deaths by gun. But what you have not shown, because you cannot, is that more guns = more deaths. Therefore, by any logical reasoning, more guns does NOT increase the number of deaths - it is something that you feel strongly about but cannot show to be true.
I did too, and set out to find the correlation between the two. Does doubling the number of guns produce double the number of deaths? 10% more? Triple?
Instead, to my shock, there is no correlation; we cannot state that more guns produces more deaths (actually homicides because "deaths" includes old age, car accidents, cancer, suicide and all the rest of it). Without a correlation my work stopped, for there was nothing to show.
You, on the other hand, continue the soapbox for more gun controls and fewer guns. You have now jumped on the "assault weapon" bandwagon...still with zero indication that more of them result in more homicides. You are desperately searching for that connection, using every tool you can find, all the while insisting it is there but simply unproven.
I have no doubt that you will succeed one day; we both know that statistics lie if you but use the right numbers and procedures. You WILL find a method to show it, even if every other study you do shows, not nothing, but the opposite of what you want to see.
And yes, in that respect it is a lie. You continue to make the claim even as everything you do shows the opposite. That is a lie. Not an error, an outright lie for your own research as well as that of everyone else says different.
In my view the data speaks for itself, but I know that wilderness will disagree.
Details of homicides in England and Wales during the financial year ending March 2020:-
• Knife or other sharp instrument = 223 male & 51 female homicide victims: Total = 274
• Kicking or hitting = 96 male & 21 female homicide victims: Total = 117
• Strangulation, asphyxiation = 46 male & 30 female homicide victims: Total = 76
• Blunt instrument = 30 male & 19 female homicide victims: Total = Total = 49
• Shooting = 25 male & 6 female homicide victims: Total = 31
• Poison or drugs = 10 male & 4 female homicide victims: Total = 14
• Burning = 5 male & 8 female homicides: Total = 13
• Other = 50 male & 21 female homicide victims: Total = 71
• Unknown = 20 male & 29 female homicide victims: Total = 49
Total 506 male homicide victims in 12 months, and
Total 188 female homicide victims in 12 months:
Grand total = 694 (on average, less than 2 homicides in England and Wales per day).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … of-killing
As quick look at Google suggests there were 16,669 homicides in the USA in 2019; 24 times higher than England and Wales, for a population that’s just 5 times higher?
According to the CDC in 2020 there were 24,576 homicides in 2020, of which 19,384 were firearm homicides! https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
In the UK suicides is a greater issue than homicide. In England and Wales in 2019 there were 5,691 suicides; equating to an average of 18 suicides per day. A quick Google search suggests 47,511 suicides in the USA in 2019 – Over 8 times greater, for a population that’s about 5 times larger! According to Wikipedia, in the USA “A firearm is used in approximately half of suicides, accounting for two-thirds of all firearm deaths.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i … ted_States
The most common method of suicide in England and Wales is hanging, which accounts for 59.4% of male and 45% of female suicides. Poisoning being the next most frequent method; and it should be no surprise that guns are almost never used in suicides in Britain.
And of course there’s a question of how many people are killed by the police, usually by gun. I know that in the USA the figure is shockingly high; in the UK the incidences are so low that each individual person killed by the police is listed in Wikipedia - Just 7 people killed by the police in the UK over the past two years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k … e_incident
People can draw their own conclusions!Thank you Nathan. And, YES THEY CAN!
Face it Wilderness, America is an extremely violent nation and the abundance of guns makes it even more so, Of course, that doesn't include suicides which EASY access to guns make it SO MUCH more easy to do."Face it Wilderness, America is an extremely violent nation"
I have said that for years. I've tried to understand the "why" and failed to do so. I've talked to others. I've wondered why we don't try to find out (and concluded it's because of the anti-gun people that refuse to allow any other answer).
But I've also shown, just as you did, that the proliferation of guns is not the reason. More guns doesn't produce more violent deaths (homicides) and both of our studies has shown that.
The single exception is suicide, and I did not look deeply into that. Do societies with more guns have more suicides? I don't know. I can assume there are more because the gun is a more sure method of suiciding, and it makes complete sense to make that assumption, but the same can be said for homicide rates and that turns out not to be true. So I can only assume that suicide numbers would fall without guns, not state it as a fact.
If noting else my research into guns vs homicides has pointed out just how false "common sense" can be, how false "obvious assumptions" can be. You would do well to take that lesson to heart as well, for "common sense", or "gut feeling", or "it's obvious" will never trump hard facts.I wonder, how many lives were saved because someone was able to defend themselves with a legally owned firearm?
How many massacres were stopped because someone in the church, mall, childcare had a firearm to stop it?
How many women have been able to protect themselves from rape or murder because they owned a firearm?
Strange that most massacres happen where the people don't have protection, where there are laws prohibiting firearms.Don't know if it is still true, but I heard that at one time all of the mass murders occurred in so-called "gun free" (meaning only the bad guys could have guns) areas.
The answer to all your questions is "some". Not nearly as many lives as has been lost when someone pulled a trigger, but "some". Of course experience shows that a killer will not be stopped because (s)he can't get their preferred weapon, which means that the statement hasn't much meaning.I suspect there is a net loss of innocent life.
I, too, suspect that the lives saved by the gun are a lot less than the lives taken by the gun.
So we should remove guns, and suffer the decrease in saved lives while the lives taken by violence remains just as high? I don't see it that way.
Only in America! “Strange that most massacres happen where the people don't have protection, where there are laws prohibiting firearms.”
In Britain people don’t have firearms, and in the past 50 years there have only been 18 massacres, with just 512 deaths in total; which pales into insignificance compared to the USA.
If people didn’t have guns in the first place then people wouldn’t need to defend themselves to such a degree, and I’d doubt that there would be so many massacres if guns were not so readily available!
The one point where you do have me is that in Britain it would generally be illegal for a woman to protect herself from rape or murder with a gun e.g. using a gun for self-defence under British is normally viewed as being ‘excessive force’ and thus generally considered as murder or manslaughter rather than self-defence.
1999 was the last occasion someone in Britain shot dead an intruder in his home, that someone was Tony Martin who shot dead a 16 year old intruder. At his trial the jury had a choice between manslaughter and murder, and chose murder on a 10 to 2 majority. The judge sentenced Tony Martin to ‘life imprisonment’ with a minimum term of 9 years; on appeal his sentence was changed to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and his sentence reduced to 5 years.
Tony Martin - The Murder That Sparked A National Debate: https://youtu.be/dGeHddPQtWM
Your country, and most of the world, has a much lower violent death toll that the US. We can only stand in envy and wonder, for we will never attempt to find out the "why" of that and never an attempt to produce the same result.
Instead we "draw our own conclusions" and scream those conclusions to the heavens. Unfortunately our conclusion is not well thought out; instead we look at the number of guns and decide that that is the cause. We never try to find out if it is true, just assume it is because "common sense" says so. And we continue to pile the bodies as a result of that false assumption because we already know the answer without looking.Is it a ‘false’ assumption? You may not be able to prove to your satisfaction whether such high gun ownership in America is a major factor in such high violent death toll; but that doesn’t mean it’s not a major factor. And if there is any chance that such liberal gun ownership laws in the USA is a root cause for the level of violent deaths then surly considering gun controls would be a first tentative step?
Nathan, it will NEVER be proven to his "satisfaction" because he appears to be hard wired for everybody and anybody to have a gun. He has seen my work, which is conclusive that weak gun laws (which lead to higher ownership rates) are highly correlated with higher death rates by gun. No study out there, and there have been many in spite of his side trying hide the data) has contradicted that result.
There is a reason why people that have the option are fleeing California by the hundreds of thousands.
Maybe the women should start fleeing from Texas over that draconian abortion provision of theirs?
And Florida shortly.
I think (hope) that what California is doing will put the kabosh on what these anti-women states are doing as the Conservatives on the Supreme Court finally get the harm they are doing.Doesn't seem to be a real concern to most people, or else people wouldn't be moving into Texas (many from California no less) by the hundreds of thousands.
I think people are more concerned about escaping the draconian taxes, lack of law & order, sky high prices, power outages, etc. in CA.People from California will take issue with Texas and pressure the state to "call off the dogs" in this matter. In time, they will Californicate Texas
That's a possibility...
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
That people would flee a state and then institute the very things that caused the state they left to deteriorate so badly would not be surprising.It isn't surprising at all; we are seeing that very thing in my state with a large number of Californians coming in and then wanting changes to match the state they found untenable.
The stupidity of people can be amazing, can't it?That should help your state turn into a civil society.
I like that. Texas needs to join the civil world.
Colorado is a prime example, growing up there, it was once a state not politically distinct from surrounding Utah, Kansas and Wyoming. With the arrival of so much influx from California during the eighties and nineties, politics there began to change. Denver, once a cowtown, has truly become the Queen City of the Plains and figures prominently among the nation's megalopolises. Now the state is firmly within the blue column.
As Californians won't live in a slag heap, it will eventually go the same way for Texas in time, just as assuredly as the sun will rise in the morning.I think there is a difference, as people drifted from CA to CO I think it was because of a desire to do so, to have a place in the mountains maybe initially a second home, or to start a new life out west, etc.
What has been transpiring the past few years is a flight, not one of choice so much as necessity. The people are "fleeing" California today... what happened to Colorado was a migration of choice, much more positive and gradual.Yes, they are fleeing in droves. No doubt the new ability to work from home is helping that exodus and will accelerate the demise of the state (where will it get the vast sums of money it needs when all the wage earners are gone?). Perhaps the crop harvesters can provide the income for the state.
Tough to harvest crops when there is no water as CA is going thru the worst drought in history.
I like to think that unlike the people who moved voluntarily to CO in years past, the hundreds of thousands fleeing CA now (and NY) learned their lessons.
Just like Cubans that fled Cuba hate Socialism, perhaps those fleeing CA have learned to hate and mistrust the Democrat Party.I doubt it, we will have Texas turn blue in time as there are many onimous trends for the Rightwinger that point in that direction already. And blue will simply out number red eventually, all the tricks and slight of hand pulled by the archaic current Texas politicians, not withstanding.
Not to mention simply dying off due to not being vaccinated. The rough count so far since Aug 1 is 312,000! And that led me to consider this:
MI:12,803 deaths and Trump won by 10,704 votes in 2016. Had Covid been around then, Clinton would have won.
PA: 14,581 deaths and Trump won by 44,292 Votes. Trump would still win there.
WI: 4,675 and deaths and Trump won by 44,748 votes. Trump would still win there as well.
Perhaps, while the urgency is not quite the same, I lived in Colorado during the exodus from Southen California to the states of Colorado and Washington during the search for affordable housing and a less hectic pace of life in the eighties and nineties. Washington is even bluer. They were not initially warmly welcomed, particularely on the "Western Slope" of the state.
I agree, those were different times.
I was a Democrat myself in those decades.
I was a "working class stiff" that had been brought up with "work hard" examples all around me. And the Democrats back then supported the working class stiffs.
I was bailing hay at 12 years old, all day, sunrise to sunset, for an actual paycheck. Not because I had to, because I wanted to earn money. I participated in political campaigns as a teenager, had a conversation once with Ted Kennedy himself during a victory party for a State Rep.
The outlook on the country, the values and "classes" the Dems represented back then were very different. States like CA and NY were thriving back then, so the people exporting themselves from NY and CA during those decades had no reason to not bring their politics with them.
My transition from Democrat to whatever you would like to label me today came much later, though earlier than what is currently going on the last couple of years.
That transition happened for me because of a few things:
1 - Having a family in NY
2 - Working for (running) State Programs and Non-Profits that put me in direct contact with how things like Welfare, Weatherization, and a variety of other programs worked to help the "less fortunate".
2a- Went to the Gala events, the parties and whatnot put on for the various Non-Profits, Politicians, etc. paid for by supporters and tax-dollars.
2b- Visited many homes that were "government housing", met with many people who qualified for benefits, or new furnaces, or new appliances.
People who would drive a 100K mercedes that could qualify to have their mortgage refinanced and partially paid off. People who had 10k entertainment systems and 5k living room sets, that were getting a free 2k fridge.
I got to see a whole lot on how government money got spent and the people that were served.
Meanwhile, despite working and my wife being a RN (Nurse) we couldn't pay our bills, our property and school taxes on our small rural home was over 10k a year, we had to spend more than 5k a year to heat our home (oil), gas was the highest (or second highest competing with CA) in the Nation (because of State taxes), electricity costs were the highest in the nation sometimes costing us over a thousand dollars a month.
If you worked for a living... boy do you pay for everything in NY, you get to spend all day working, stressing out, and still not having enough money to live on.
I think that reality has sunk in for all the people fleeing from CA and NY now obviously for economic reasons as taxation gets worse... but I think the draconian lockdowns, the mandates, the looting, rioting, etc. has also done a lot to wake people up.
I think the exodus that is occurring now are the disillusioned (former) Democrats and many Conservatives (economic ones) that can't take what is going on in CA and NY for one more second.
I know quite a few people, regular working stiffs, Space X and Tesla employees, to the Joe Rogan types... they are all fleeing, that is the key word... fleeing... CA's taxes and politics.Well, Ken, we do have something in common. I met a svelte, young Edward Kennedy at Stapleton Airport in Denver as a teen, working there in 1971. I swore that I after I got to shake his hand that I would never wash it, but I did.
I certainly did not come into this world with a silver spoon in my mouth. But as a Black person, I had to be concerned about race matters in addition to an economic philosophy based on the advantages for working people. A dual track. The Democrats presented a platform more in line with that than the Republicans were.
I hear what you are saying about the changes, the lure of money in politics have change the allegiance of many. It is just that the Republicans have never been any good (at least during my lifetime). There is no real advantage to changing from doggie excrement to horsey excrement in exchange.
Some are fleeing but not all, the rigid, unyielding conservatism found in these red states will prove stifling for educated and urbane people. The California exodus contributed to much of the change in Colorado's political outlook. If they could do it there..... I suspect all of this is just a "flash in the pan".
We both know that the system is unfair at its very foundation, I just believe that allying with Republicans and conservatives is just a futile attempt to put out fire with gasoline. Both sides are bad, it is just that I trust "their side" considerably less.Yes I know, intractable in your position until the very end.
It is no longer one wing or the other that is bad, it is the whole bird.
For reasons I have belabored enough. It doesn't matter which side has control or what their true beliefs are... if the ship sinks we all go down.
Bad leadership... corrupt leadership... is just that, regardless of party.When it is ALL corrupt what are the choices?
Revolt? I sometimes wonder if that isn't in the works for the US. There is more and more anger and violence directed towards our government and towards anyone that doesn't do as we wish them to.
By Trump Republicans because they can't get their dictator back
That is why we will soon have an American Social Credit system.
Just like China.
I wrote about this years ago:
https://hubpages.com/politics/How-China … our-future
China's social credit system would soon be implemented here.
US Trending Toward China’s Social Credit System, Enabled By Big Tech:
https://tradeforprofit.net/2022/02/us-t … k-analyst/
"Big tech companies are doing the bidding of the U.S. government in actions that mirror China’s social credit system" - Which only makes sense, as our government works to serve the interests of those very International Corporations which have more money and influence than most Nations.
Your credit score may soon depend on your web history
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/credit-s … 00431.html
We have seen how facebook, twitter and other Social Media sites worked together to ban Trump supporters and finally Trump himself, this will not end with Trump and his supporters, it will be used with anything considered "misinformation" or "politically threatening".Lets hope not, because the result will be that America will cease to exist in any form that we currently recognize. It becomes a pariah state, completely forfeiting any claims to world leadership. (Mad Max in the Thunderdome)
We just as well revert back to Miles Standish and the Mayflower, before one stone ever got placed upon another.
There will be no "happy campers" to be found. The geography broken into shards that even Putin would not want to pick up.
"Some are fleeing but not all, the rigid, unyielding conservatism found in these red states will prove stifling for educated and urbane people."
That remains to be seen, but you may well be right. Some years ago I read where immigrants from Russia very often returned home; they could not handle the freedom, and the requirement that they were responsible for themselves rather than the government doing it all for them. Your "urbane" and "educated" people likely fall into the same box.
Yeah. A queen city, where it is OK to urinate and defecate on public sidewalks and streets.
Denver is becoming another San Francisco. It, too, was once a beautiful city, fund to visit although prices made it nearly impossible to live there. Now it is nothing but a garbage dump and only fools and people ignorant of what it has become go there.Denver is not San Francisco, is that your "broad brush" at work again?
But of course, you are opposed to any large city, in principle. It is still a beautiful city, it just is perhaps bit too diverse for your tastes, unlike Boise, Idaho. So much for what you know...... I guess "Mayberry" will do for you?I agree, I took several government management classes there over the years. Very beautiful and pleasant.
Esoteric, you were lucky to be able to do your TDY training coming to Denver. I was based at the Denver Federal Center, of which you are probably familiar, and had to stay in town to take my weekly seminar courses almost all of the time.
When I think back to the sheer number and intensity of coursework classes and seminars needed to acquire and maintain my Contracting Officer's warrant, it reminded how great the Feds were as an employer to insure that its personnel were well trained to do their jobs.
I glad that you found favor with my neck of the woods.
If you are going to descend into insults the discussion is over.
But on the chance you had a bad night, I did not say Denver was San Francisco; I said it was going the same direction. It will likely end up the same way.
But if you mean SanFran is a beautiful city I suspect you haven't been there for a while. It was going downhill when I was there several years ago and talking to several people that visited more recently every one says they will never go back, for it nothing but a cesspool today.No insult intended , Wilderness. It is just because of your professed attitude, EVERY large city is going in THAT direction. That comes with being a large city, and is unavoidable.
If Denver is to suffer the fate of SanFrancisco, what large city will not?
Let's face it you have a chip on your shoulder regarding any area that have more people than cows?
I aware of the problems with San Francisco, but don't link my home town to it.
Since everybody carries today, why not shoot at each other?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/20/us/portl … index.htmlNow daddy's with guns have 4-year olds shooting at police. When will it end? (It will slowed down at least by more effective gun safety laws which don't confiscate guns as some paranoid Conservatives will claim)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/us/child … index.htmlAnother 14 kids and a teacher dead at a Houston elementary school. The Houston mayor asks how many more is it going to take before something is done? Gov Abbott will probably respond "who cares how many so long as ANY Texan can possess a gun."
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/texas- … g-05-24-22
Now it is 18 kids!!In Texas, you can buy semiautomatic rifles at age 18 and carry them around in public without a background check or training, but you’re not old enough to buy beer or cigarettes.
Gun violence is political because NRA lobbyists pay our politicians for their inaction.
I find it very interesting also that Donald Trump will be addressing a conference held by National Rifle Association (NRA) in Houston, Texas, on Friday.
The event will be strictly gun-controlled in ways the NRA and Mr. Trump routinely oppose for any other setting. “Guns won’t be allowed in spaces where Donald Trump and NRA executives are speaking" why? because someone might try to kill them?What a hate-filled statement about Gov Abbott. My God unbelievable.
But nevertheless representative of his actions to-date. His laws are why that kid could buy 2 AR-15s and 375 rounds of ammunition with high capacity magazines within 5 days of turning 18.
I think I was being nice considering the harm Abbott is responsible for!
I think it's fair to hate someone whose lax policies directly lead to the murder of children.
And lax policies they must be. A troubled 18-year-old who can't buy a beer can buy two semi-automatic rifles. This can't be right and it certainly can't be defended or explained away by platitudes about evil.
90% of Americans support universal background checks for guns yet this measure can't get through the Senate due to politicians beholden to the National Rifle Association. Government in the United States really doesn't work for the people.
And that includes 75 - 80% of non-leadership NRA members.
"Doesn't work for the People"- Conservatives sure prove that every day.
Yep – Only In America: 214 mass shootings so far in 2022 in the USA; 27 of which (one a week) have been in schools. The only country in the world where gun violence is so horrific (shocking): Why – Because Americans adhere too rigidly to an outdated Constitution (2nd Amendment), and interpret the 2nd Amendment too liberally e.g. the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the States from the Federal Government by each State having its own State militia (private army) made up from the citizens of the State; hence their right to “keep and bear arms”. It was a system of defence that was abandoned in England in 1645 when Oliver Cromwell founded a National Army during the English Civil War.
In this day and age the 2nd Amendment needs amendment; then perhaps America could become more like the rest of the world, and suffer less gun violence, and less gun deaths!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … es_in_2022
An appropriate title to this analysis piece - "The most powerful nation on earth cannot keep its schoolkids safe at their desks" Sadly, that is a statement of fact and not a question. 30 times so far this year children have been mowed down in school, most often with a weapon of war.
Yet people (?) like Abbott, Cruz, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, DeSantis, Paul apparently have no problem with it since they oppose do anything about it.
It is no wonder that America is the most dangerous place on earth, of major nations, for schoolkids to live. It is not too healthy for the rest of us either since we have have a higher chance of being gunned down than any other comparable nation.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics … index.htmlOh GAWD! Another idiot Trump devotee - Hershel Walker. Here is what he said when asked about how to stop gun violence on Fake Fox News.
"Cain killed Abel and that's a problem that we have. What we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You know, you talked about doing a disinformation -- what about getting a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at their social media. What about doing that? Looking into things like that and we can stop that that way. But yet they want to just continue to talk about taking away your constitutional rights. And I think there's more things we need to look into. This has been happening for years and the way we stop it is putting money into the mental health field, by putting money into other departments rather than departments that want to take away your rights."
Even Trump made more sense most of the time. Sen Warnock should be a shoe-in, lol.Damn it, Esoteric, I hate jocks.
How utterly profound....
He remains a discredit to our race and just the kind of figurehead token that the GOP crave. I am neither interested in nor follow football, but if you want to be my leader, you are going to have to qualify by having something upstairs.Yep, Walker is not only an embarrassment to the Black race, he is an embarrassment to the human race as well (just like his cult leader Trump)
I 100% agree with that sentiment. As I shared my opinion that Harris was a token when Biden chose her as a token VP. One could say, as you have seen fit to label Walker, she has "nothing upstairs". BUT, is that really fair, to label a mere stranger as having "nothing upstairs"? I will admit I did and do think Harris does not appear to have much going "upstairs". But, never thought it was fair to label her in that respect.
It seems you said the same thing about Tim Scott (that he was a token). The question is, are all black individuals that profess to be Republicans tokens?Sharlee,
I am not pleased with Harris thus far as I expected more from her, but Biden may have deliberately selected her as he wanted a less controversial VP. But, I need my leaders, regardless of their color, to be both smart and courageous.
I don't see Tim Scott in the same way, as he is in the difficult position of any black man in Republican Party would be in trying to support the party line in the f ace of ever increasing bigotry and extremism much of it directed at his very own.
I believe that Tim Scott has a mind of his own and is not a token, Walker and, unfortunately, it seems to me that Harris reminds me more of that.
I don't believe that I am attacking strangers but two politicians that left me with my opinions of them based upon their words and actions or the lack thereof.' I am not pleased with Harris thus far as I expected more from her, but Biden may have deliberately selected her as he wanted a less controversial VP. But, I need my leaders, regardless of their color, to be both smart and courageous."
Fair and good point.
"I don't see Tim Scott in the same way, as he is in the difficult position of any black man in Republican Party would be in trying to support the party line in the f ace of ever increasing bigotry and extremism much of it directed at his very own."
I have researched Tim Scott in depth. I think the bills he has offered and supported speak loudly about his dedication to the people that sent him to Washington. The black community would be very proud of this man if they got to know this man, and what he actually is trying to do while he is in office.
If interested check out the Bills he presented. I think you will be very surprised. He is my view should be a man that the party highlights. His deeds speak loudly. https://www.congress.gov/member/tim-scott/S001184The fact that he has shown himself to be a busy legislator is not lost on me. I am sure that if he could introduce and pass legislation on his own, our folks would not come to the conclusions that it has about the Republican Party and its loyalties. But, again, Tim is just one man, the rest of the party needs to catch up.
He has confessed to being a conservative, and it's clear to me he is a man that is proud of his conservative values.
I noticed that one of his major pieces of legislation is an anti-worker union-busting bill. S.3889 - Employee Rights Act
I will never understand how a minority or woman can accept today's Trump Republican orthodoxy. It seems so masochistic. If Scott and some of the others were only fiscal conservatives, that would be one thing. But it does seem they accept all of the downsides to being a social conservative that our out to hurt them.
To each his own, so long as they don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the Trump orthodoxy clearly hurts others.
BTW, while I do have my issues with Harris, her lack of intelligence is not one of them, she is quite smart and driven to get to where she is today.
Is she a "token"? No, no more than Pence was to get the conservative religious vote.Eso, yes Scott is still a Rightwinger and Republican at his core. Today's GOP have gone beyond "conservative" to "off the rails". I just think that with the extreme positions the party has taken on so many issues, he would fumble for words.
Yes, they screw over labor in favor of management, that is what Republicans do, and what they have always done as long as I have been around. That is certainly part and parcel of the idea behind fiscal conservatism. If Scott were confronted with open carry/no restriction gun laws or draconian GOP interpretations of abortion rights or none there of, what would he say in an interview?
Being comfortable with a more strident and populist Left, i would have been happier if Biden has provided a "token" that would appeal to my affiliations and our wing of the party, instead of another establishment mainstreamer. Would a Warren or Sanders as VP sink Biden's candidacy?I can't be certain. They both are intelligent and activist and would not be content on the job unless they could "upset the Apple cart". That is in effect a great deal of what is needed and what I wanted, but the country may well not have been ready. That is my disappointment, while Hershel is a dummy, Harris is not.
She lets me down in what she has done. I like to see that intelligence get the gridlocks undone, and assist in the improving the party's message, not sit there and let the Republicans prevail and just roll over us. Smart people find workarounds so that what was once impossible, will now just take a little bit longer.
Do Something!!"Would a Warren or Sanders as VP sink Biden's candidacy?I can't be certain." - [i]Yes, I think it would have. Biden didn't win by much in any of the battleground states.
Would the black vote had come out for a Warren or a Sanders as much as they did for Harris? How about in Maricopa County in AZ where there are many more "conservative" leaning Latinos.
States with the most gun violence share one trait - More Guns = More Deaths. Also, weak Gun Safety Laws = More Guns.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics … index.htmlAs usual the lie is apparent right off the bat. From your link:
"The indisputable fact is that where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths."
Whereas your statement is that there are more deaths, without the qualifier. Good for you in noticing that it doesn't matter if the body has a bullet hole or not, it's still dead. Ten lashes with a wet noodle for telling the lie.
One is a no brainer, the other is outright false. Just a look at a few states with high gun ownership rates:
Wyoming. Gun ownership; 66.2% Homicide rate: 3.1
South Dakota Gun ownership 55.3% Homicide rate 4.5
Idaho Gun ownership: 60.1% Homicide rate: 2.2
Vermont Gun ownership 50.5% Homicide rate 2.2
And some states with low gun ownership rates:
Illinois Gun ownership 27.8% Homicide rate 9.1
New York Gun ownership 19.9% Homicide rate 4.2
Florida Gun ownership 35.3% Homicide rate 5.9
Maryland Gun ownership 30.2% Homicide rate 9.1
So it's not true that more guns = more deaths. It might be true, though, that weak gun laws = more guns. It sounds right, but accepting it after the bold lie that more guns = more deaths is difficult.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state … p-by-state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … %20rows%20"Whereas your statement is that there are more deaths, without the qualifier. " - Why do you insist on being obtuse? I'll answer that - because you simply want to be argumentative and deflect.
As to your statistics - it is not that simple and that kind of simplistic analysis will often lead to wrong conclusions with complex problems.
I took a look at your Wikipedia link and one thing popped right out at me. Generally speaking, there is a distinct upward trend from 2011 - 2020. In a lot of cases it accelerated after Trump took office (not surprising). You know what also increased from 2011 - 2020: Gun Ownership, raw numbers and rates.
Go figure!Yep - when liberals began attacking their hero for no reason but their loss of political power, when folks began seeing the months long riots, when the calls for defunding the only protection they had...people bought guns.
Don't know that it changed the statistics much though. More guns does not equal more murders. No matter how many times you say it, it remains untrue.No matter how many times you say it is untrue, it is true and your own sources point strongly to that.
BTW, it was the pandemic and Trump's hate speech, not the summer violence or the insurrection, that led to the huge increase gun purchases. Your innuendo's don't work with thinking people.Assuming that you refer to more guns in a state = more deaths, the short data list I gave here sure showed that, didn't it? All that needs done is to read the opposite of what the data says.
You may think it was Trump, but your imagination is once more running wild. Not even the pandemic did that (no one shoots a virus), but the lockdown, the poverty and desperation of that lockdown, the depression of the lockdown - these and more did. Our reaction to the pandemic, then, helped fuel the gun buying.
But if you think that watching cities burn as police and politicians do nothing (or take negative actions such as refusing help) you need some psych studies. People respond, and the fight or flight response is among the strongest. When violence goes unchecked night after night, month after month, the response is to get ready for it on MY doorstep, not just across town. When people watch anarchy happening in their city, state or country, without response from the protective groups of police, they will respond. When they find their government taking control of their lives and bodies (masks and vaccines) without reason (whether those people were right or wrong) they will respond. And the response was a readiness for the expected violence.
The lie that gun violence is the same as homicide rate was a rather weak attempt to discredit the article's claim. But, as usual, changing the original meaning of something is something you always attempt to do to undermine the arguments of others. And something we all can easily spot.
The article claimed that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, and I responded that that was a no brainer. How did I change the original meaning?
You're right Nathanville. The Constitution seems to be treated as if it were Holy Writ.
And it wasn't intended to be that way regardless of what Conservatives think.
Nor was it intended to be changed at the political whim of a few liberals. Instructions on how to change the Constitution are written within it. They are difficult to accomplish, to the horror of the liberal that would change it every year, according to the political winds.
Here is a little lesson in logic
1. If all guns were banned in America and it was 100% enforced, then it is self-evident that violence by gun would be non-existent in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be drastically reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun.
2. If all guns were banned in America and it was 80% enforced, then it is self-evident that violence by gun would be extremely rare in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be drastically reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun.
3. If all guns in America were subject to California/Massachusetts gun safety laws and it was 80% enforced, then it is still self-evident that violence by gun would be very low in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be still be very much reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun.
Why?
Because in states with similar laws the mortality rate due to firearms runs between 3.3 and 8.5 per 100,000. On the other hand, in states with lax gun laws like Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, you know, Conservative states, they same statistics range from 12.7 to 28.6!
When you look at gun ownership, as Wilderness did but used the wrong y-axis, you get something like this. Top Ten States:
Montana (66.30%) - 20.9
Wyoming (66.20%) - 25.9
Alaska (64.50%) - 23.5
Idaho (60.10%) - 17.6
West Virginia (58.50%) - 18.1
Arkansas (57.20%) - 22.6
Mississippi (55.80%) - 28.6
Alabama (55.50%) - 23.6
South Dakota (55.30%) - 13.6
North Dakota (55.10%), - 13.8
To me, that is irrefutable."then it is self-evident that violence by gun would be non-existent in America and the overall rate of homicides and suicides would be drastically reduced since something 75% of all homicides are currently by gun."
When someone says "it is self-evident" what it really means is "I think so and therefore it is correct". Please provide data showing that without guns the homicide rate will fall. Your statement hinges on the assumption (assumption, unproven) that without a gun, killers will not kill. As that is manifestly false (take a look at the statistics for murder by bludgeoning and by hands and feet), you will have a very hard time showing that murders won't happen, OR that it will fall drastically.
Would you mind posting the link to your "statistics"? It is not from what I used - I can't find your homicide rates anywhere on the chart, and the one I used was for homicide rates, not "mortality rate due to firearms" anyway. Did you find one for only gun deaths and are trying to say that if there are no guns no one will die by a gun, changing it from no one will die by violence to violence by a gun?He got the stats from the FBI. It's easy to find.
"When someone says "it is self-evident" what it really means is "I think so and therefore it is correct"." - That may be YOUR definition of "self-evident" but that is not the correct one. Here are some.
clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation:
Solutions which seem self-evident to humans are often beyond the grasp of computers.
: clearly true and requiring no proof or explanation
The meaning is self-evident.
self-evident truths
(Logic and Math.) A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, ``The whole is greater than a part;'' ``A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.
Definition of axiom
1: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE sense 1
one of the axioms of the theory of evolution
2: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"
3: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
the axioms of wisdom
So no, self-evident means self-evident.LOL Self-evident to the speaker. Which is what I said.
As just a single example, consider the "self-evident" statement that 2+2=4. Although we all accept it as "self-evident", if you every try to prove, mathematically, that simple, self-evident statement you will find that it is not so simple and that it is most definitely NOT self-evident.
When your definition is that something is self-evident it means that it is clearly true and needs no proof, it simply reverts to the fact that it is self-evident to the speaker, and that speaker neither needs nor has proof. To anyone else that may or may not be true, and doubly so in any controversial subject (such as the one being discussed). "I think so and therefore it is correct" in other words.
Sure - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm … irearm.htm
Hint - Since we are talking about guns, most people will understand we are talking about deaths from guns and not pitchforks.
To me, at least, you are trying to deflect by playing word games.OK - you're going to default back to gun deaths rather than homicides, in an attempt to insinuate that if gun deaths fall so will homicides.
There is no argument here; take the guns away and murders using a gun will fall (at least if you are successful in getting the guns). But all that means is that killers will find another way, so the body count does not change significantly, which is the ONLY thing I'm interested in. I don't care if a body has a bullet hole, only that there is body. You do, and that's fine, but don't try and convince me that it's OK to have a body as long as it doesn't have a bullet hole, and don't try to deflect from killed victims by slipping in that one word to deflect from the body count.
I recognize, from seeing it done dozens of times, that a great many writers and speakers will not discuss the body count before and after taking guns - only that the number of bodies with holes will go down. I've seen it over and over and over as "proof" that gun controls work, and the argument does work...for those that don't catch the qualifier or are simply afraid of guns and want them gone from their neighbors home. I am neither of those.
Murdered people are not a game; it is you who are trying to deflect from the death toll by limiting the conversation to one specific type while pretending that it will matter to the survivors or the dead if it isn't by a gun. Trust me here; the grieving parents at Uvalde couldn't care less if their child has a bullet hole, is burned to death, run over by a car, poisoned by their school lunch, or gassed with a war gas. The ONLY thing that matters to them is that their child is dead (and, in this case, mostly from inaction from the "protectors" of those children).
Homicides in England and Wales from 2003 to 2015:-
• 2003 = 1,047 homicides
• 2004 = 904 homicides
• 2005 = 868 homicides
• 2006 = 764 homicides
• 2007 = 758 homicides
• 2008 = 775 homicides
• 2009 = 664 homicides
• 2010 = 620 homicides
• 2011 = 639 homicides
• 2012 = 553 homicides
• 2013 = 558 homicides
• 2014 = 533 homicides
• 2015 = 534 homicides
N.B. the USA population is 5 times the UK, so multiply these figures by 5 to get a more direct comparison!
In 2020 there were 695 homicides (506 males and 188 females killed); the homicides by method of killing in England and Wales were:-
• Sharp instrument e.g. knife = (275 homicides) 40%
• Other = (137 victims) 20%
• GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) e.g. hitting and kicking with bare hands and feet = (115 homicides) 17%
• Blunt instrument = 5%
• Strangulation = 5%
• Gun = 4%
• Poison = 3%
• Motor vehicle = 3%
• Drowning = 2%
• Burning = 1%
33% of murderers were under the influence of alcohol and or illicit drugs.
The UK Government Stats link into this UN link below:-
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and … icide.html
I conclude that part of the reason there is more violence in the USA than the UK is because guns are freely available in the USA, but are extremely difficult to get hold of in the UK. Plus neither criminals nor police carry guns in the UK.Two numbers surprise me, both being low: the 33% with alcohol involved and the 5% strangulation (I figured that would happen to a lot of women)
I'm more surprised by the "blunt instrument" (baseball bat or other club). Elsewhere that figure is second only to guns, and actually exceeds that number of murders of all long guns combined (data from a few years ago - it might not be the same for 2020).
I guess there are factors other than drink and drugs that are common causes to murder: In the UK in 2020 56% of females were murdered by someone they knew e.g. partner, family member or friend; whereas only 30% of males were murdered by someone they knew?
The 5% for strangulation doesn’t surprise me, in this day and age a lot of the British men are wimps and no match for women (LOL); although I would have thought that strangulation victims would predominantly be women. But looking closely at the data, in England and Wales in 2020 45 men were strangled compared to just 30 women?
The link for the data is below, but the charts can give a misleading impression from just a casual look; for example, in Figure 7 strangulation, asphyxiation appear to be higher for women than men, but running the mouse over each bar gives the percentage for each sex separately e.g. Male victims of strangulation is 9% of 506 offences (506 being the total male victims), thus 45 victims – whereas female strangulations (although it looks bigger in the chart) is 16% of 188 offences (188 being the total number of female victims), thus only 30 female victims.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … gmarch2020Erratum: When I stated ‘Strangulation’ above, I was a bit sloppy; it should have read ‘Strangulation/ asphyxiation. And the figures I gave for ‘Strangulation/ asphyxiation’ in 2020 are somewhat skewed from the norm in that they include the ‘Essex Lorry Deaths’; 39 Vietnamese people, 31 men and 8 women who were being smuggled into Britain in the back of reregulated lorry (air tight) and thus died of asphyxiation en-route.
9 people in the UK have been convicted of various crimes related to the incident, and a further 19 jailed in Belgium. The two main culprits were given 20 years and 27 years respectively for 39 counts of manslaughter and people-smuggling.
So take that one incident out of the equation and you end up with 14 men that were strangled or asphyxiated in that year, and 22 women; which fits in with your surmise that women tend to be the more likely victim of strangulation.
Essex lorry deaths: People smuggling ringleaders spared life sentences https://youtu.be/uXHuzvL19TM
Unfortunately two data points (the US and the UK) do not make a statistical universe sufficiently large enough to draw conclusions from.
Compare all the developed countries for gun ownership vs homicide rates (rather than simply comparing two of them) and you will find that countries with lots of guns have fewer homicides just as often as they have more homicides. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates; without a correlation one cannot declare causation.Of course, there absolutely is. You presented only one data point, Switzerland, and as I pointed out, that was dubious. Where is the link to the others you are referring to.
Also, because you made the point, when you say homicide, do you mean homicide by gun or by any means?It only takes one data point to disprove a theory, while it takes many to prove it right. You know that as well as I do.
I mean homicide. I don't care if the body has a bullet hole in it, a knife slice, poison in the belly or anything else; I don't want the body at all. Your entire thrust appears to be eliminating bodies with holes in them, that any other cause of death is fine, but I disagree."It only takes one data point to disprove a theory," - Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the theory. If the theory is that Earth is at the center of the Universe (people were put to death by Christians if you didn't agree), then you are right, one data point destroys that theory. On the other hand, as it is here, if the theory is that the higher the rate of gun ownership the higher the rate of death by gun, then it is false, one data point does not disprove it.
If you mean any homicide, then you are mixing apples and oranges. It is non-sensical to draw a correlation (let alone a cause and effect) between one cause of death (guns) and the universe of deaths. You are supposing that owning guns drives death by knives and pitchforks and drowning, which on its face is a ridiculous relationship.Not at all. I have always presumed that gun controls were being instituted to save lives (please correct me if I'm wrong) but when ONLY gun deaths are counted, ignoring that killers will use whatever tools are available, then that isn't so.
For instance - you take away the gun that Bob meant to use to kill in a mass murder. Instead he constructs a truck bomb and kills 100 people rather than the 20 he might have gotten with his gun. Did you save lives? Does it matter that the 20 didn't die? Do you get a pat on the back for saving 20 while 100 died instead?
I think not.
But, say you, what if he killed only 19 with his truck bomb? Don't I get credit for the one saved? Yes, of course...but you don't get credit for the 20 you will claim you saved by ignoring the results of the new weapon."ignoring that killers will use whatever tools are available, then that isn't so." - Except that is provably untrue, just like your claim eons ago that if someone who wants to commit suicide with a gun will chose another means if one is not available. The jury is in on that one - many, many people will forgo killing themselves if they can't do it by gun.
Provided the initial data needed prove your statement incorrect and he started down that path with his wanting to adjust for population. Now, a minimum of another thirty countries whose data can be trusted are needed to make a good statistical case. But it can be done. Also, Common Sense works against a one-for-one exchange in weapons if a gun isn't available. The fact is, without guns being easily available the homicide rate by gun will decline. And where guns are used in the majority of homicides, then the overall homicide rate will decline as well.Then prove it. Show that when guns are taken the homicide rate goes down. Not, mind you, the GUN homicide rate, but all homicides. Nor does a claim that "common sense" is sufficient, or that it is "self evident" or some other verbiage indicating you think it is true but cannot prove it.
I will concede, though, that suicides will drop. An insufficient to take guns from millions of people though, IMO.
Your example is a false equivalency since the chances of Bob constructing a bomb are next to nil if he can't get an AR-15 or similar weapon of war. Chances are high that if Bob can't get his desired weapon, he will drop the idea as too risky.
And, if he doesn't, and grabs a pistol or knife, a lot less people will die.Again, prove it. Show that homicide rates, all types, drop when guns are taken. Or when a society has fewer guns than another.
More to the point from https://www.politico.eu/article/global- … e-numbers/
Country Firearm Death Rate Firearm Ownership Rate
- USA 4.16 120.5
- Canada .496 34.7
- Finland .214 32.4
- Swiss 1.83 27.6
- Sweden .253 23.1
- Germany .083 19.6
- France .315 19.6
- Australia .177 14.5
- Mexico 15.547 12.9
- Russia .724 12.3
- Brazil 20.796 8.3
- UK .039 7.1
- Poland .082 2.5
By and large, this supports the idea that the lower the RATE of gun ownership means a lower RATE of death by guns.
The two obvious outliers are Brazil and Mexico. Both have a unique problem not seen in the others - massive gang (mainly drug) violence, almost to the point of war. I would also distrust the Brazil data as I would Russia's.
While the trend is very clear, there are a whole host of factors that drive the variability. But the point remains that is if you plot this with the rate gun ownership on the X-axis and the rate of deaths by gun on the y-axis, you get a clear upward sloping line.I'm sorry, but when I can pick out pair after pair after pair that show the opposite result from what you wish your conclusion doesn't wash.
UK and Poland. Guns wend down, deaths up.
Russia and Australia. Guns down, deaths up
France and Germany. Guns identical, deaths way up
Sweden and Switzerland Guns down very slightly, deaths down by a factor of 7
Finland and Canada. Guns nearly identical, deaths halved.
No cherry picking; leave out Brazil and Mexico (I agree they are not useful), and take every pair from the bottom as they come. 3 of the 5 pairs show the opposite of what you want, the other two show great reduction in deaths without change in ownership. This data does NOT show what you want it to. Not unless you carefully cherry pick the pairs.
Beyond that you are still hung on the premise, or assumption if you wish, that without a gun there will be no death. Either that or a body is fine as long as it wasn't done with a gun.
On average, every American owns 1.2 guns. The closest competitor to that horrible statistic is the Falkland Islands at 0.61 guns per man, woman, and child. On top of that, getting guns in America is the easiest place on earth as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us … index.htmlApproximately 40% of US homes has a gun. For Switzerland the number is 48%, yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Apparently more people with guns = fewer homicides, right?
(Your numbers and mine are different because of multiple guns in a home, and because mine is per home rather than per person. US citizens tend to own more than one, while the Swiss don't.)
https://www.thelocal.ch/20200128/europe … %20people.How hard is it to get a gun in Switzerland? As easy as Mississippi?
Much more difficult. Given that more homes have one already, how does that matter?
In addition, military service is required (for males), and (I think) all in the military take their weapons home with them. It's more of a militia than our concept of an army, although they do have a standing army as well. That means that a lot of the guns aren't owned by the homeowner, but he does have possession and access to them, which is what counts if you're going to murder with it.
But it doesn't matter how hard it is to get when half the country is armed (as in the US). The point was that more households have guns than in our own country and the murder rate is an order of magnitude less than ours. More guns = more murders, right?The whole point of gun safety laws is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, isn't it? So, it is self-evident (and statistics back this up), the tougher it is to get a gun, the less likely it is for the owner to misuse it.
GIve a gun to the bum on the street corner (which you can do in some states), what are the chances it will be used to evil purposes. Give the same gun to someone who had background checks run, had to wait five days, required to take training classes, and other measures responsible states have put in place, what is the likelihood THAT person will put it to evil ends.
Let's put it this way, could the Texas kid gotten two AR-15s and 375 rounds in high capacity magazines in Switzerland?I understand what you're saying, and there is some truth in it. Apparently a reference from mental health can be required to issue a permit to buy.
But at the same time, when 48% of homes have one, when every militia member has one at home, when every male is required by law to serve, it doesn't seem that big a deal to get one.
Angry veteran on gun control.
The bill I would put forward
More on gun controlJust thought I would put this out there to remind everybody that the 2nd Amendment is not monolithic as the NRA wants you to believe.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008I was updating my Guns in America series and came across this fun fact. 2020 was a very slow year for mass killings. Why, because of the pandemic created lockdowns.
There was one incident in January, second in February, and a third in March. The next mass casualty event didn't happen until August.
For comparison, there were 18 mass killings in 2019, 8 in 2020, and 13 in 2021 (still suffering from Covid). In 2022, there have been 9 so far and we aren't even half way through the year.You notice what is missing from these daily reports of mass gun violence? Any mention of the false equivalencies put forward such as knives, pitchforks, truck bombs, water poisoning, drowning, strangulation, and the other manner of deaths.
Nope, it is always guns.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/tulsa … index.htmlOh, and then there is this (they are getting younger)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/calif … index.htmlAnd what can you do about it?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/opinions … index.htmlThey can't be ALL bad, but they (Trump Republicans) try. Here is a rare example of them doing something right which is pissing off the NRA (who is suing them) and fellow non-Florida Republicans.
They created a meaningful and effective Red Flag law that works.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics … index.htmlNice to see public pressure building up on Republicans to ban the AR-15 style mass murder weapon of choice.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … px-dlt.cnnAnother MASS SHOOTING last night in Philadelphia. That is number 239!!!! MORE THAN 2 A DAY. This one was with pistols, one with an extended magazine.
"There have been at least 239 mass shootings so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. CNN and the archive define a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are shot, excluding the shooter."
There are just TOO many guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
The ONLY things, I fear, that will allow sensible gun safety laws to be enacted is 1) God forbid, but the friends and families of these obstructionist Republicans become casualties of gun violence and/or 2) 61 or more Democrats are elected to the Senate. Neither is likely to happen.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/us/phila … index.htmlAnd now I learned there were EIGHT mass shootings since FRIDAY!!!!
Isn't it AMAZING how conservative illogic works. Ted Cruz and others blame Everything Else of all of the gun violence in America, yet all other nations have those SAME problems. Why do THEY NOT HAVE so many people killed by guns yet A<ERICA can have 10 MASS SHOOTINGS in two days?
It is the GUNS stupid! Too many guns in the wrong hands.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics … index.htmlWon't miracles never cease. We might, possibly, maybe, by chance be able to ban (or at least keep them out of the hands of immature, irresponsible 18 year olds) weapons of war yet!!! Just think how many lives that will save if it comes to pass.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics … index.htmlToo many guns!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/us/orlan … index.html
Here is why city's like Chicago and New York have too many guns. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/tyrek … index.html
What a bullet really does.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/health/g … index.html
Is gun safety reform dead again? Yes, if Trump Republicans have anything to say about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.html
In the meantime, survivor tales will fall on deaf, uncaring Republican Cult ears.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.html
Supreme Court Justices are not immune.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.htmlIncluding the links in the original post you have presented a lot of info to ponder. However, as I see it, as horrific as gun deaths are in actuality they aren't even in the top ten for death type, though they surpass vehicle deaths. That is what the other side looks at for their argument. And, that is not bringing mass shootings into the discussion.
Let's face it they are not going to do what they did in Australia. Guns are not going away. However, there has to be a starting point for change to occur. I think what should happen is to start over with a baseline national gun legislation that is reasonable and can all the other old ones on the books. And, if a state wants to do more they can. Otherwise it is band aid after band aid that appeases public sentiment until the next outrage occurs.Oh, Australia die not take all the guns away. Only all the semi-automatic rifles. And sat back applauding their action as the death toll fell...at the same rate it had been falling for years. This was a great achievement, to maintain the status quo, according to Australian politicians.
We have been over this Wilderness. You are trotting out the NRA line, not the truth. As I showed you once before, the data does not support your claim.
I believe it was Sharlee that posted a graph of Australian homicides around the year of the buy back. On this forum, if I'm not mistaken.
It plainly shows what I said, although this time the Aussies show a rise in the death toll, not a slow drop, after the Gun Grab.
Whatever you think you showed, it was not the truth.No, it does not "plainly" show what you are talking about. I spent a lot of time and effort debunking those misleading statistics.
Look at the graph posted carefully. It goes UP after the guns were taken. That does not indicate a lowering of homicides.
I saw the graph, I studied the numbers AND I looked at other factors that are involved. I went into a lengthy analysis of why you and Sharlee were misinterpreting what the numbers were showing.
Then you cannot draw any conclusion as to the efficacy or result of taking guns - now when there are other factors at work. If those others factors resulted in a climb in homicides, then you cannot claim it would have fallen if it were not for those factors.
Of course I can. You forget that analyzing things like that was my job for 20 years for DoD. I know how to understand data. I sincerely doubt you have the training or experience to do the same.
Yes, the change has to start national. Nothing too extreme, but slight changes. As an example, around 60% of the guns recovered from Chicago originate from outside the state. So if states around Illinois are allowed to be more lax than national standards, it won't help those states that want tighter restrictions.
Some other data to support a change: https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-assault- … 07345.htmlBTW, while guns may not be in the top ten causes of deaths for Americans, it is the leading cause of death for American children, 19 and younger.
I would think that would be self-evident, I guess not to some.
I am just being a realist regard my original post. Yes, there certainly is a problem and the fact your brought up is damning, though does it matter? As said earlier guns are not going to disappear. They are here to stay and people will continue to be killed by them. Sad!
Making guns disappear (save for weapons of war) is not the point nor is it what gun safety proponents want. The goal, once you get past the paranoia of the gun rights nuts, is to make it as hard as possible for somebody who shouldn't have a gun, get one.
That is doable if it weren't for the deadly opposition of people who don't give a damn about human life.I agree to an extent. I like the gun laws where I live in Calif and am happy with them. I don't see them becoming reality on a national level. Some, maybe. But, to be honest if I see someone in the summer wearing a jacket I look to their hip for a concealed weapon by nature.
As far as doable goes just because there is a law on the book doesn't mean it will be followed. For extensive background check there is no bank of data of any kind whatsoever for mental illness persons other than the one for research projects of volunteers. Besides it is known 1 out of 5 persons has a diagnosis. The only way with a background check to know that information is if someone voluntarily admits to it. And, as far as that goes if a person is given a diagnosis they are not going to show up to his/her home and confiscate their guns. Or, again, show up in data bank in the future.Then why do we continue to see attempts to ban guns that are NOT "weapons of war"? Bans on handguns, bans on semi-automatic rifles (or any semi-automatic weapon), bans on guns with folding stocks or barrel shrouds, etc.? None are "weapons of war", yet the cry continually goes out to ban them.
"Then why do we continue to see attempts to ban guns that are NOT "weapons of war"? " - Because we don't. That is simply your paranoia speaking.
A few cities have tried and failed to make it very difficult to purchase guns, so difficult it almost seems like a ban. But those are the rare exceptions that your side turns into a rule. And each time they try, the Supreme Court slaps them down.
What reasonable people want to "ban" are weapons designed not for sport or hunting (I don't consider hunting a sport, but that is a different discussion) but for killing the most people in the least amount of time.
What rational can you come up with to allow that sort of weapon to be in the hands of anybody who wants one, especially immature, partially developed18-year olds?"But those are the rare exceptions that your side turns into a rule."
They may be an exception (or not, as they are not operating in a vacuum), but it keeps happening. They get slapped down, they try another end run around the intent of the law. And again and again.
Guns are designed and built to make the manufacturer money. That you wish to claim they are designed solely to kill the most people in the least amount of time does not make it so. If that were the case we would see nothing but machine guns coming out of the manufacturing plants.
What rationale? Probably because they are given the right in our most sacred document. At the same time, though, there are many exceptions made to that right and the law; one more that actually makes some good sense is probably a good thing.
But...want to bet the fight to take guns out of the hands of citizens won't keep on going, regardless of what is done? Regardless of home many people lose their right, the fight to take that right from more people will never end."But...want to bet the fight to take guns out of the hands of citizens won't keep on going, regardless of what is done? " - Why do you keep punching at air, a figment of your imagination. There is no movement to take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. One of these days you will figure that out.
Also, you dodged the question, so I will ask it again - "What rational can you come up with to allow that sort of weapon [i.e.weapons designed not for sport or hunting, but for killing the most people in the least amount of time.] to be in the hands of anybody who wants one, especially immature, partially developed18-year olds?
Based on you previous non-answer, one would think you approve of putting those weapons in the hands of anybody who wants one.
"Guns are designed and built to make the manufacturer money." - Even the ones we are talking about [i.e.weapons designed not for sport or hunting, but for killing the most people in the least amount of time.] that are ordered by and based on military specifications for the purpose war?Let me ask you - how many people do you know with the fearsome "assault rifle", and what is their answer when you ask why they bought one? Do they answer that they did so in order to kill the most people in the least amount of time?
You can make up slogans like that forever, and scream them to the heavens forever, but that does not make them true. You can even pretend that the military orders the civilian versions, and you scream that to the heavens as well, but it isn't true either, and all the repetitions that the military uses civilian weapons won't make it so.It doesn't make any difference does it when mass murders can get on so easily and go slaughtering hundreds of adults and kids a year, not does it The harm to the public good they do far outweighs any benefit people get from shooting at paper targets.
To answer your question, I know of several people who bought weapons of war just so they could kill lots of kids and adults in a short amount of time So do you.
But back to my question which you keep dodging (for obvious reasons) - Also, you dodged the question, so I will ask it again - "What rational can you come up with to allow that sort of weapon [i.e.weapons designed not for sport or hunting, but for killing the most people in the least amount of time.] to be in the hands of anybody who wants one, especially immature, partially developed18-year olds?Your entire premise appears to be based on the claim that "weapons of war" are sold indiscriminately all over the country.
You know that isn't true. You know that the civilian AR15 (or it's look-alikes) are not "weapons of war". You know they are not used by the military, and never have been. Yet you continue to say the words indicating that those things are true.
Shame on you. An intentional misdirection, an intentional effort to convince others that a lie is true, is still a lie. It is the intent behind the words that counts (just as you claim with Trump), and your intent is to mislead those ignorant of guns, spreading fear without reason.
(Your question is unanswerable, and for the same reason all those of the "Have you stopped beating your wife" are. When any answer at all assumes what is not true, it cannot be answered. But if you MUST have an answer, there is no rationale because it isn't happening; the requirements for buying those weapons of war {designed and intended to kill large numbers of people} are very strict and they are very difficult to obtain for anyone let alone an immature partially developed 18 year old.)
Key moments in today's testimony
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics … index.htmlSomebody really needs to explain to me how the Constitution can be used to excuse mass murder. I apologize to those who think that I'm a wishy-washy pinko, but it makes no sense to me at all.
What makes you think the Constitution does excuse it?
GAJust ask the NRA leadership, they will give you a thousand reasons.
Simply because it's always trotted out. In my opinion, it doesn't excuse it at all. The amendment covers two possible scenarios, neither of which apply today.
So stop it! Get your politician on a line that will end the violence. Not a line to take guns away to no effect, a line to stop American violence.
Why is your go-to always a light switch, all or nothing?
Same question back at you. Why is your only solution to take guns away from killers, hoping they will not kill with something else?
I rarely, if ever, use all or nothing words like you do, or mischaracterize one's position like you just did.
That's not an uncommon view. It has been addressed many times judicially, but never in its favor. I assume one of your scenarios is the militia thing, what is the second?
GAMy second part is "in order to secure a free state" as in A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In my reading, nowhere in there does it imply "self-defense". Instead, it is pretty clear it is talking about defending the state. Scalia invented a rational to infer it also meant "in personal self-defense" out of whole cloth, in my opinion.
Now, with that said, I have no heartburn at all with people being given the right to "bear 'reasonable' arms" for self-defense. It is just that that rational was not part of the original 2nd Amendment.I think the 'state's security' part is in reference to why the state needed a militia, not why citizens need guns. It is the 'militia' part that says why citizens need guns. So I say there is only one inference in the text: that citizens needed to have guns so militias could be formed. There is no inference that is the only reason.
GA"I think the 'state's security' part is in reference to why the state needed a militia, not why citizens need guns." - I absolutely agree. That is why I think Scalia was very wrong in his ruling, despite my parallel belief that Americans "should" have a right to "bear arms" for self-protection. It just needed to come about in a different manner.
It has been a while since I dug into Scalia's opinion. I will have to look again to make sure I know more about it than he did.
GAAs you do, consider Scalia's supposed "literalist" philosophy in interpreting the Constitution. I have found over time that for conservatives who say that is the correct way do so only when it is convenient. When you look at their rulings, they are as "activist" as any liberal judge they put that label on - the probable demise of Roe v. Wade being a poster child.
I haven't heard Scalia called a literalist before. I certainly don't see it.
I found a great read analyzing his opinion. After reading, my response would be 'Yeah, what he said . . .'
His reasoning for the "self-defense" extrapolation is generally acknowledged as sound. The main criticism seems to be the path he took to define which "arms" were protected.
The contrarian 'more Originalist' criticisms reached the same understanding as Scalia's opinion, but by a, claimed, more constitutionally sound path. Hmm . . .
GA"His reasoning for the "self-defense" extrapolation is generally acknowledged as sound" - My point, of course, is that "extrapolating" is what liberals do and people like Scalia abhor. Yet he did it.
Even though I support owning guns for self-defense, I just can't by the twisted (not an insult) logic he used to get there. You have to make a lot of major assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is about personal self-defense. The only way I can see it is if one buys the argument that a "State" and a "person" are similar enough to be considered the same thing. If you do, then the 2nd Amendment could be written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Person, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
and still make sense.
As to Scalia - https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2006/11/ … iteralism/The thought still holds, but maybe extrapolation carries the wrong meaning. Maybe the 'evolution' or the 'path' of his reasoning? The intended message was that he looked to the original meanings of "keep" and "bear" and found them to be properly inclusive of the intent to defend self and home. aka self-defense, as they were used in the text of the amendment.
Bringing that current and pre-period understanding to the reading of the text supported and explained his interpretation. It worked for me.
Your link was good. He even made his critics think about what he said.
GA" The intended message was that he looked to the original meanings of "keep" and "bear" and found them to be properly inclusive of the intent to defend self and home." - [i]How do you get from there to hear, based on all of the words in the 2nd Amendment, including the grammar and context of why Madison wrote those words.
In all of the study I have done on that period do I recall seeing any reference to personal self-defense. Have you?I don't know that I have looked into the period enough to answer your question, but I don't recall such either. However, Scalia's reasoning makes sense to me.
It's been years since I took a dive into this, so consider me to be 'thinking out loud' on this 'new' direction; that the 2nd isn't establishing a Right, it is addressing a pre-existing Right. I hadn't considered this in that light before.
Now that I do, it makes sense. Accepting that much of our Constitutional construction was based on English law, looking at the 2nd from that perspective shows 'people' were said to have the Right to bear arms as early as the 11th century. It also shows that Right has been conditioned in different ways from its earliest 11th-century roots.
I think that if you take a look at this issue from that perspective, which means considering more than just Madison's presumptive words focusing on militias, it is easy to see the finding of self-defense, (of hearth and home), as true. I don't think the inclusion of militia references is limiting, due to the context of its purpose—to calm fears of standing armies.
I see the inherent Right of self-defense, (regardless of method), as a given because it was a historically accepted Right. I agree with Scalia's reasoning.
GA
Given that those people were (in their view) under the thumb of a terrible tyranny, it would seem that a "free state" includes freedom from a tyrannical government.
You are right about that. The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure citizens were able to form State militias using their own arms in order to fight against the British should they come back (which they did).
The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists unless you think Mexico or Canada is going to attack us and the federal forces won't be enough to repel them. Nevertheless, it is still on the books.
Let's Make Sure More People Have Guns
June 3, 2022 (and we have the weekend to go):
- Chesterfield, VA - Graduation party : 1 dead, 7 injured
- Omaha, NE - Apt complex: 1 dead, 3 injured
- Ecorse, MI - Ambush at a party: 5 wounded
- Socorro, TX - Graduation party: 5 wounded
- Phoenix, AZ - Strip mall fight - 1 dead, 8 wounded
- Saginaw, MI - BBQ shooting - 4 dead plus a fetus, 3 wounded.
Others between June 4 and June 5
- Hempstead, NY - Residential area: 1 dead, 3 wounded
- Summerton, SC - Graduation party: 1 dead, 7 wounded
- Philadelphia, PA - Nightclubs: 3 dead, 11 wounded
- Chattanooga, TN - Nightclubs: 3 dead, 14 wounded (it happened a week earlier also)
- Mesa, AZ - Nightclub: 2 dead,2 wounded
- Grand Rapids, MI - 1 dead, 3wounded
-
In non-mass shootings, 246 people are killed a day with guns.
Don't tell me we don't have a uniquely American gun problem!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/11/us/us-ma … index.htmlWe don't have a uniquely American gun problem.
We DO have a uniquely American problem with violence, though, and one that we steadfastly refuse to solve, address or even acknowledge."We don't have a uniquely American gun problem." - The data does not support your claim. If you want me to report it, I'll be happy to do that.
So? America has neither the highest number of guns per household nor the highest homicide rate. What is unique about it then?
There you go again trying to argue with extreme positions. Face it, you don't want the obvious to be true, consequently there is no amount of reliable information that will change your mind.
Also, if you have to ask "what is unique" in the face of all of the available information, then you clearly don't understand, or don't want to understand the problem.Eso, if you don't think the violence in America is an "extreme" case you desperately need to rethink your position.
I notice you didn't bother to describe what is "unique" about the violence in America, though."if you don't think the violence in America is an "extreme" case you desperately need to rethink your position." - what a comment like that displays is your propensity to purposefully misinterpret the written word
Sighhhhh - It is UNIQUE because NO OTHER WESTERN-ORIENTED COUNTRY HAS SUCH A HIGH RATE OF DEATH BY GUN THAN AMERICA, whether it be suicide or homicide. It is not even close and is one of those self-evident things that you chose to be oblivious to.I guess that is true if the "western oriented countries" are picked just right, with those having higher rates being denied the designation. Of course, that is (as always, it seems) limited to gun deaths rather than murders in total. A curiosity to me as I don't care if a body has a bullet hole or not, but you seem to think it makes a huge difference to the survivors or even the dead.
But we are NOT "unique" in the number of homes with guns in them - we are not the highest by a long shot."I guess that is true if the "western oriented countries" are picked just right, with those having higher rates being denied the designation. " - And you just told another tall tale.
"Of course, that is (as always, it seems) limited to gun deaths " - [i]But isn't that what we are talking about? Gun deaths? No other comparable nation has the same rate of death by gun - not even close. As to overall homicides, you are still wrong. Only Russia, of major indutrialized nations has a higher homicide rate.
Don't waste your time trying to point to Venzuela, Columbia, Mexico and the like. Each has circumstances that make them uncomparable to America.
"But we are NOT "unique" in the number of homes with guns in them - we are not the highest by a long shot." - Sorry, you can't even make that statement because the NRA made it impossible to keep track anymore. We no longer have a clue as to how many guns are in circulation today. The only clue you have is the increasing number of homicides and suicides by gun.
Here is one way to protect school children - Cancel school and buy more guns, espceially weapons of war.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/us/misso … index.htmlSoon, every ciry will be no safer than people were in Dodge city in the 1800s.
That said, IF the NY law made it near impossible for any citizen to obtain a permit IS TRUE, then I am not sure I can disagree with the dicision. Gun safety laws are necessary, but not unreasonable ones.
I wonder if NY can pare back their law somewhat to make it easier for truely law abiding citizens to obtain a permit that it will pass muster.Wanted to point out a fact --- How Many Gun Owners are in America? 32% of Americans say they personally own a firearm according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey. This means that more than 81.4 million Americans own guns.
Does this not offer some indication that the great majority of gun owners in America are responsible?Let me give you a fact - in 2020, there were 45,222 people killed by guns. That represents a 14% increase over 2019 and a 25% increase from five years before and a 43% increase from 10 years ago.
So, in ten more years a MINIMUM of 450,000 people with have died from gunshot wounds. Now, with the SC decision, that number will increase dramatically.
OBVIOUSLY, there are a lot of gun owners who are NOT responsible.
Why do you fight so hard to keep guns in the hands of the irresponsible ones?"Now, with the SC decision, that number will increase dramatically."
Why? Because a legal owner can now legally have it on their person? How will that dramatically increase the number of murders using a gun?Because, in a short amount of time, anyone will be able to obtain a weapon - there will be very few prohibitions stopping the sale of pistols, rifles, assault weapons, machine guns and the bumpstocks to turn many of them into automatic weapons,and high capacity as well as high capacity magazines to make it easier to kill lots and lots of people. I bet they will even approve the sale of devices that will turn almost any gun into a machine gun.
The SC just guaranteed an increase in Uvaldi's.
"Does this not offer some indication that the great majority of gun owners in America are responsible?" - Since most Americans are responsible, give me your reasoning for having any laws at all. I ask, because that is the logical extension of your logic.
Very simply, we need laws to make sure responsible law-abiding citizens can buy a gun, ( hence the reason we have 81.4 million Americans own guns. that buy guns following our laws. I certainly did not in any way indicate we do not need gun laws. You're taking the conversation off into la-la land".
Gun laws can help ( but not insure) that guns are going into safe hands. However, gun laws are not the answer to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. I am PRo Gun LAWS. PERIOD.
Let me remind you --- Most crimes are done with guns or guns that were obtained illegally. Gun laws do not prevent a criminal from getting a gun, stats well prove that. Facts tell us that we have 81.4 million Americans who own guns. Facts tell us the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.
"Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates
(SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal
prisoners reported that they had possessed or
carried a firearm when they committed the offense
for which they were serving time in prison (figure 1).
More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used
a firearm by showing, pointing or discharging it
during the offense for which they were imprisoned.
Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had
obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed,
carried, or used it during the offense for which they
were imprisoned.
An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
firearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either STOLEN it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer."
US Department Of Justice report --- https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf"Very simply, we need laws to make sure responsible law-abiding citizens can buy a gun, " - Think about what you just wrote - you want laws on the books to "allow" people to buy guns? There are no such laws to "allow" someone to do something, only laws to "prevent" people from doing something. In this case, laws to prevent "irresponsible" people from purchasing guns. Of course, now that conservatives have spoken, there will be no such laws! Yet, despite you declaring that you are "pro-gun laws period", by defending the Conservative's deadly ruling you contradict yourself.
What are your statistics supposed to prove?? I am at a loss. I suspect those in Uvaldi, Buffalo, Chatanouga (twice), Philadelphia, Tulsa, Chicago, Laguna Woods, Pittsburg, Columbia, NYC, Sacramento, and Portland - and that is just in 2022 so far - will very much disagree with you.
THOSE are the statistics that have REAL meaning. And now, it is just going to get worse every year - thanks to conservatives.
That said, even your statistics beg a question. "How much of the 32% who got their guns from family members, as a gift, or purchased legally could have been reduced with BETTER gun laws that you say you are in favor of?"
I read more about the backward-looking Supreme Court decision. Two things those activist Conservative Justices will have accomplished:
1. The reversal of the vast majority of gun safety laws on the books
2. Hundreds of thousand of deaths by gun that would not have happened absent their horrible decision!Is it your position that SCOTUS members should have voted how you think the decision should have gone to benefit the country rather than by what the Constitution says?
That decision reversed "the vast majority of gun safety laws on the books"? Elucidate, please, explaining which laws are reversed (more than half of those on the books, you claim).Obtuse, obtuse, obtuse! The Constitution doesn't say anything about what Thomas wrote. If fact, those six idiots slapped our founders in the face and stompted on their graves with that decision.
Now a thousands more will die and tens of thousands wounded because of their deadly ruling. I am now in favor of stacking the court to save America.
Your second statement is so rediculous as to not warrant addressing.I see. You refuse to address either comment or question, presumably on the theory that you are always right without needing any reasons or facts.
Something that is pretty obviously false to begin with.
This is what people have to do now to protect themselves from trigger-happy gun owners. Now, that there will be very few restrictions on purchasing weapons of mass destruction, imagine what people are going to have to do now. Further, I would advise anyone vacationing in America from abroad to consider that America will be as dangerous a place to be as it is in Mexico.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/26/us/gun-v … index.htmlDo you honestly think that gross exaggerations help your cause? Or are you saying that we will now be able to purchase a nuclear bomb from the neighbor down the street?
What was the exageration? That there will be very few restrictions on anybody buy a deadly weapon?
"Now, that there will be very few restrictions on purchasing weapons of mass destruction https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4251050
Weapons of mass destruction are defined by the UN as “[…] atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which might have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.” https://www.bing.com/search?q=what+is+a … ORM=CHROMN
Homeland Security defines it as "nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people." https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction
You, on the other hand, seem to define it as a semi-automatic gun. This is a gross exaggeration; weapons of mass destruction have never been defined as a simple rifle. My question to was whether such exaggeration and loaded terminology, however false, helps your argument.
I was hoping we could get through the holiday without have to report another mass shooting. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable happened. This time in Chicago. Six people dead so far and many more wounded.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/illino … index.htmlYeah, more mass shootings in the USA than the rest of the free world put together should be a strong indication that there are just far too many guns in America. To an outsider the answer seems obvious - Less guns and tighter gun controls, not more guns.
Worked well for drugs, didn't it? Laws prohibiting the sale, ownership or use of illegal drugs...and the death toll from overdoses keeps climbing.
??? Drugs are not guns; apart from which the overall prevalence of drug use reported in the UK has remained relatively stable throughout the last decade, so it's not climbing as you claim - unless you're just talking about the USA?
Besides, just think how much higher drug abuse would be if it wasn't a controlled substance.Yes, I meant the US. But where does the opinion that it would have climbed come from? The assumption that there would be more drug overdoses if they were not illegal?
Like guns, the assumption is that if a gun is illegal criminals won't have guns, and the assumption that if guns are illegal people won't kill (at least at anywhere near the same rate). Neither assumption is founded on fact, just on "common sense" that is false to fact.If you restrict something, its harder to get, so its not a false fact, it's common sense.
Gee Whizz, make drugs legal and let everybody have guns; just think of the carnage and death!!!!
No thanks, I'll stick to common sense and support the high level of restrictions in guns and drugs that we have in the UK. At least on celebrations in the UK similar to your 4th July I'm not going to be shot at."The assumption that there would be more drug overdoses if they were not illegal?" - You are witnessing Wilderness' Obtuseness.
"Like guns, the assumption is that if a gun is illegal criminals won't have guns, and the assumption that if guns are illegal people won't kill (at least at anywhere near the same rate). "- You do know, don't you, that has nothing to do with reality nor what sensible people are trying to accomplish.
Actually, it did. The assault weapon and high capaicity ban was a great success, until conservatives decided they didn't want any more success.
And yes, more guns lead to more deaths and a higher death ratel, exactly like more drugs do. Fewer guns lead to less death and a lower death rate. Ask any European.
Like at Uvaldi, a doctor reported that died had their "bodies explode" from the type of weapon of war and ammunition used in the Highland massacre. War vets reported that the sound of the attack was no different than what they expierenced in Iraq or Afghanistan - all in the name of making sure anybody can get a weapon of any type in America.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/illino … index.htmlOnce again, exaggerations do not aid your argument. Or do you have more information than the rest of us as to the gun used? (A "high powered rifle" means an ordinary hunting rifle to me, not an automatic weapon or even a 50 cal. sniper rifle).
Instead of helping, all it means to most people is "I am making this all up, so do not believe or listen to me!"I dont think it has been reported what specific guns he used. But this is how it sounded.
https://youtu.be/car_3Nv3dtwWhat the model was may not have been reported but it was clearly a weapon of war. No "normal" rifle built for civilian use can do that or blow apart a body like this one did.
That is just baloney. As you frequently say, facts have been shown, here, multiple times, that prove how misrepresentative your thought is.
The rapid rate of fire, (as recorded in videos), and the extreme bodily damage you highlight, are characteristic of almost every single semi-auto hunting rifle made, (that loads by 'clips')
Videos using the same ballistic gel as anti-Ar-15 folks use to show this damage also show the same damage created by a 30.06 deer-hunting rifle. I think you are aware of this and are being purposely hyperbolic using claims that have been shown to be inaccurate.
GAYou will need to show me that video, because the one's I have seen show a distinct difference.
I tried to find a comparison chart of muzzle velocities of AR-15 assault rifles and other semi-automatic hunting rifles. While I could find information for the AR-15 (3,251 fps) I couldn't for others (in time, I will). I did find this, however, to differentiate an assault weapon and hunting rifles. (Correction, I found one for the 30-06 - between 2,600 and 2,800 fps. about 16% slower - and therefore less destructive on the human
The AR-15 is, by design, easier to shoot accurately and rapidly than a a typical hunting rifle because it mitigates recoil. The standard AR-15 bullet, as previously stated, carries kinetic energy of 1300 foot pounds; a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 -and 4000 foot pounds, meaning it has greater recoil. The excessive recoil of a hunting rifle precludes rapid firing on target, because of the obligatory motion of the gun and its impact on the shooter. But the moderate energy of the AR-15 allows shooting on target literally as rapidly as the trigger can be pulled, while providing ample bullet speed to inflict lethal wounds.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/p … ncna848346
Therefore, I hardly think I am being hyperbolic.Here is a comparison video for .223, (AR-15), vs. 30.06, (hunting rifle).
You can see a direct comparison in the ballistic gel. The video also shows the actual muzzle velocities: 2867 fps vs 2663 fps— 7% difference.
The gel results and muzzle velocity are nearly identical.
I say your claim: "No "normal" rifle built for civilian use can do that or blow apart a body like this one did." is debunked, visually and factually. So, yes, your claim was very hyperbolic and inaacurrate.
Ballistic Gel Test!! **Hornady 223 & 30-06
If you go to the video you can also see others that compare firing speed, (trigger pulls), showing a 30.06 'hunting rifle' being fired at the same rapid rate as an AR-15.
Also, the gel tests fairly debunk the claim of the .223 being designed as a 'tumbling' bullet. It acted the same as the 30.06 in the gel.
GAI watched the video several times but had a hard time following it because my audio made it very hard to hear the narrator.
I will watch it more, but here is my initial impression once I figured which shot was which.
1. The 30-06 was slower than then the .223
2. The 30-06 went completely through the gel, which I read mitigates damage to some extent.
3. Some of the video seemed to show a more "explosive" result shortly after the .223. entered the gel than did the 30-06. But, the final disturbance didn't look that much different at first blush.
I am looking for more.
This describes what a .223 bullet does to the human body.
https://ncpolicywatch.com/2022/06/13/mo … an-beings/
The question I am researching is whether other semi-automatic rifles that are considered "hunting" rifles (as opposed to semi-automatics built specifically for war) which fire the .223 creates similar damage.I know the feeling: you can't believe your lying eyes.
Even after saying they don't look "much different at first blush" you still want to find something that will prove your eyes wrong. Geesh.
As for your "hunting rifle" search, re. .223 bullets, that too has been shown in the comparison of the .223 Ranch rifle.
Here you go, (again):
GALooking at those pictures reminds me on how different British gun laws are to American laws; in particular, in the UK if you made a fake gun out of wood, and made it look realistic, the maximum penalty under British Law for doing so is 10 years in prison.
Quoting from UK Law:-
• Section 36 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 makes it an offence for a person to manufacture, sell, import or cause a realistic imitation firearm to be brought into Great Britain.
• Under Section 37 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006: “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm.
• Under Section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968: “Possession of firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence” maximum sentence 10 years prison.
Just being in possession of a firearm (or imitation firearm) in public can attract a prison sentence of up to 7 years.
So under British Law, being in possession of an imitation gun and causing fear of violence is just as serious, and attracts the same prison sentence as being in possession of a real gun and causing actual violence!
If you think the above is harsh by American standards then undersections 17(1), 17(2), 18 of the Firearms Act 1968, just being in position of an imitation firearm with criminal intent attracts a maximum penalty of ‘life in prison’. So it’s no surprise that Criminals in the UK don’t generally carry guns.To decide, as a society, to have such laws is fine with me, but the concept is so alien to my view that I can only shake my head' in response.
That response isn't coming from a 2nd amendment or Natural Rights, (or macho), foundation. The idea boils down to criminalizing scaring someone. And with a life sentence to boot. That's nuts buddy.
There may be valid arguments for some harsh punishment for violent criminal acts, but not a life sentence, (without other factors).
GALife sentence is ‘maximum’, not mandatory; whether a life sentence is given is up to the judge, and will depend on various factors of the case, including the circumstances of the case, whether it’s a first offence, whether the accused pleaded guilty and or shows remorse etc. - in most cases a judge will not give the maximum sentence.
There are currently 75 people in England and Wales serving whole life sentences, with no chance of parole; which is nothing compared to the USA, where currently there are 53,290 people serving whole life sentences with no chance of parole! So what crimes do such a high number of Americans commit to warrant such harsh punishment as ‘whole life with no chance of parole’, or even the death penalty, which we no longer have in Europe?
Zero tolerance policy to serious crime with guns seems to me a sensible way to keep gun crime levels low; it may be ‘harsh punishment’ but at least it does discourage criminals from carrying guns, so it’s very effective in keeping our society safer.It does seem to be effective though, gun violence is rare in Great Britain. That said, it wouldn't fly here because of what you suggest - proportionality.
The question does come down to, is saving 20,000 lives a year (I took out the suicides) worth "scaring" somebody into not using a gun when they commit a crime?
I have always wondered why American are happy to let violence happen BEFORE trying to reduce it? Seems bassackwards to me.
Let me ask this, will either one of those rifles literally blow a child's head off when hit? Or rip an arm off? If they can, they should be banned. i know of no "sport" rifle that can so decimate a body that the only way to identify them is through her shoes.
Back then, those were distinguishing features, they clearly aren't today. All that means is they need different differentiators. Maybe things like 1) what was the weapon designed for? Mass killing or shooting at varmints? 2) Can the weapon be used successfully in modern warfare? 3) What will it do to the human body on impact? Pulverize it or put a hole in it? Things like that.
I agree with Nathan below. Our laws are too lenient when a gun of any type, fake or otherwise, is used in a specified set of crimes like murder, burglary, robbery, etc. Maybe if they don't fire it - 50 years. If they fire it - 100 years. Granted, that won't deter most mass shootings since most of them are prepared to die anyway, but I bet it would reduce other crimes.And this is where we end up. First arguing about the facts and when they fail, it becomes all about emotions, (blowing a child's head off).
GAShould a "sport" hunting rifle be able to do that? If it does, that makes it a weapon of war and should be banned.
And "blowing a child's head off" IS fact, not emotion. It should separate legal from illegal weapons don't you think?
Your theory is that the AR-15 is no different from a normal semi-automatic "sport" rifle. You try to prove there is zero difference between the two besides the manufacturer. Isn't that correct.
So I am left with, if there is no difference, then all semi-automatic long-guns must be banned (which I don't support, but will if it gets the AR-15 type weapons of the street).
But, if there IS a difference, then only those designed for war like the AR-15 should be banned (which I do support), Isn't that the bottom line?It appears that you see there is no significant difference, so you are left with banning all semi-autos. Why don't you support that, it reaches your goal of eliminating 'weapons of war'?
Do you mean a 'new' bottom line for you, or for everyone?
GA"It appears that you see there is no significant difference," - And how do you draw that conclusion since i have been arguing the very opposite?
And it does seem like I have a lot of company with my "bottom line". 60% of Americans want assault weapons banned again. That was in 2019. I have to think that after the average of two mass shootings (defined as four or more dead or wounded) a day in 2022, In virtually every mass shooting that made the headlines, an assault weapon was used, most often an AR-15. Not once have I heard that a semi-automatic hunting rifle was used.
Anyway, you might find this source interesting. Especially how the wording changes the results.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling … apons.aspx
"Do you mean a 'new' bottom line for you, or for everyone?" - NeitherI drew my conclusion from your statement:
"So I am left with, if there is no difference, then all semi-automatic long-guns must be banned (which I don't support, but will if it gets the AR-15 type weapons of the street).'
In the context of our exchange, regarding the factual details, of the difference in capabilities of the rifles, you did not refute the factual support I offered. So of course, when you said you are left with a total semi-auto ban, with the qualifier of; 'if there is no difference', your message seemed clear.
Did I read it wrong, do you see a significant difference in the performance capabilities we have been discussing?
Your link was informative, but it is about what people 'think', as determined by the question's construction. That isn't what we were talking about.
GA
Clearly, the Red Flag laws need to be strengthened and since it is Illinois, they probably will be.
In September that year, a family member reported that Crimo threatened "to kill everyone," and had a collection of knives, Covelli said. Police removed 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from their residence.
Highland Park police submitted a "Clear and Present Danger" report about the visit to the Illinois State Police, the state agency said. Family members were not willing to file additional complaints, the state police said in a Tuesday news release.
The knives confiscated by Highland Park police were returned the same day after Crimo's father claimed they were his, the state police said.
Over the next two years, Crimo legally purchased five firearms, according to Covelli -- including rifles, a pistol and possibly a shotgun. State police confirmed Tuesday that Crimo passed four background checks between June 2020 and September 2021 when purchasing firearms, which included checks of the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
To buy firearms in Illinois, people need a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. Crimo was under 21, so he was sponsored by his father, state police said. Crimo's application was not denied because there was "insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger" at the time.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/us/highl … index.html
Should the shooter's father be charged?Of course, Republican McConnell has no interest in reducing the new uniquely American passtime - mass shootings with weapons of war. A sport which happens on average once a day!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/politics … index.html"The assault weapon and high capacity ban was a great success, until conservatives decided they didn't want any more success." Amen and amen. The 12 largest car rental companies won't rent a car to someone under 25, but those folks can buy a gun! How much intelligence does it take to see some reasonable solutions to this epidemic of killings? A 2-year-old is now an orphan because his parents took him to a 4th of July parade! Your second amendment rights are more important than a child having parents? Where are all the right to lifers on this?
I heard the officer Mike Fanone, the policeman the insurrectionists almost killed, say that:
1. He owns lot's of guns, including an AR-15.
2. He says he was required to have one as a Metro Police Officer and keeps one around now that he is retired to keep qualified.
3. He believes this war weapon should not be in the hands of anybody who isn't military or law enforcement.
4. Public safety outweighs the entertainment value of possessing something designed specifically to kill lots of people very quickly.
Just a reminder of what this is all about - an UNSAFE AMERICA
"These days, it's impossible to celebrate -- or even gather -- in American communities without fear, including in places of worship, inside our cars, at grocery stores, the mall, or even in our schools. There was no clearer example of that than the shooting one week ago that pierced the sense of collective joy during Fourth of July holiday festivities in the town of Highland Park, Illinois.
Thanks to the gun lobby's "guns everywhere" agenda, none of us are safe anywhere."
- Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and the author of "Fight Like a Mother: How a Grassroots Movement Took on the Gun Lobby and Why Women Will Change the World."Yeah - Looking across the pond from Europe; I don't see America becoming a safer society until/unless more Americans see sense!
After reading your sentiments I contemplated on Britains most dangerous night of the year; Guy Fawkes - 5th November. It pales into insignificance compared to the gun violence in America, but Guy Fawkes night is the Fire-Services busiest night of the year in Britian. For example, in 2019 the Scottish Fire-Service dealt with 374 bonfires on one of their busiest nights of the year between 3:30pm and 11:30pm, and their Operations Control handled more than 1020 calls from members of the public that night - and it's a similar picture repeated in every region of Britain and Wales.
Disturbing Origin of Bonfire Night & Guy Fawkes Day (5th Nov): https://youtu.be/R92dkwpDcMI
Lewes Bonfire: Britain's most dangerous Guy Fawkes celebration: https://youtu.be/Fcecvnlgu8E
Cain slew Able with a rock. Had he had an AR-15, he would have killed Adam and Eve as well.
The AR-15 gave him time travel too? I want one.
GA
Here is an example of the danger Clarence Thomas has caused with his "let everybody and their brother have a gun" decision. A federal judge struck down a Texas law banning 18, 19, and 20 year olds from carrying guns in public. His reasoning? They weren't banned in the late 1700s and minors could be part of the militia. Here is to another 1,000 or more people being murdered. (I am amazed Texas even had the ban)
It won't be long before it won't be safe to walk outside your house in America where each city, town, and hamlet will be like Dodge City of old. Can you imagine, since they didn't ban guns from bars in the late 1700s, they won't be able to in America pretty soon.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/us/texas … index.html"It won't be long before it won't be safe to walk outside your house in America"
It won't be long? It already isn't. We're already at the point where a simple stroll through the park risks mugging, rape or murder. Where a short drive risks being car-jacked.
Meanwhile liberals continue to pretend that an inanimate object is the cause of our violence while at the same time ignoring it happening and refusing to take steps to put an end to it.Interesting. Until Trump came along, all of those crimes you mention were on a steep decline (except for motor vehicle theft which was only declining slightly). Since Trump, they all have been increasing dramatically, especially homicides. That was another "problem solved" by having Trump as president, lol
You're right - since Trump (after he left) liberals have made it increasingly clear that it is fine to commit crimes. At least if they don't threaten the "powers that be" in DC.
Of course, that has been going on for years, getting worse all the time. Poor, poor criminals (violent or not) must be left alone to do as they wish.That is totally nonsensical. It is also untrue.
Right. And you can provide truthful statistics showing crime has fallen since Trump left office? I think not.
There is no "pretending" about it. The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower. But, because this nation has a love affair with guns, we put up with thousands of dead people as a result.
Unfortunately you are completely incapable of proving that without guns people won't kill (at nearly the same rate). It makes for fine rhetoric, but when examined in depth it fails every logic and fact test.
But I will agree that without guns bodies won't have bullet holes in them. Of course that means that you must disarm not only the law abiding people (fairly easy) but criminals as well (impossible). And figure out how to convince survivors that bodies without bullet holes are preferable to bodies with bullet holes - personally I doubt that they will care much and I'm positive the dead won't care.
Perhaps the gun haters need to take a big step backwards and actually look at reality and experience rather than simply spouting false-to-fact concepts and ideas that wouldn't work even if true. Perhaps if they actually addressed the problem instead of wringing their hands and crying over the number of guns we might get somewhere. But, unfortunately, they won't.Come on Wilderness, get real. Where did I say "Unfortunately you are completely incapable of proving that without guns people won't kill "? Why do you make those things up?
And, you are deflecting, of course, from the statement. So, let me try again:
The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower.
And YES, that can be proved by comparing rates between countries who make heroes out of gun owners and those who protect their citizens by limiting access to guns. That is a simple statistical analysis.
"disarm not only the law abiding people (fairly easy) but criminals as well (impossible.)." - Why impossible?? England has almost done it, so has many countries in Europe, without even trying hard."And YES, that can be proved by comparing rates between countries who make heroes out of gun owners and those who protect their citizens by limiting access to guns."
Then do so. Provide statistics, data and proof rather than a simple statement of unsupported opinion. Strip it of your ridiculous description ("make heroes of gun owners") and show us the data. Provide a list of at least 50 countries, their gun ownership rates and their homicide rates. And then draw a graph of the data and provide the mathematical equation of that graph showing proof that fewer guns = lower homicide rates.
"Why impossible?? England has almost done it, so has many countries in Europe, without even trying hard."
You are correct. Some countries (particularly dictatorships) have almost done it. Unfortunately that is not what you said, and "almost" leaves tens or hundreds of thousands of criminals in a country the size of America with guns. We have, for years and years, made it illegal for criminals or ex-cons to possess a gun...and the result is tens of thousands that do so anyway. "Almost" appears to mean anyone that wants a gun can have one and it is still "almost all" that don't.Look, Wilderness, I know you are smart. I know you read as much as I do. I know you have previously read my stats on the comparison. I know you have read what Nathansville has written on the subject. Rather than me wasting my time regurgitating the obvious, do a simple Google search on your own.
You are also deflecting far away from the point.
You made the silly and ridiculous claim that "Meanwhile liberals continue to pretend that an inanimate object is the cause of our violence while at the same time ignoring it happening and refusing to take steps to put an end to it."
To which I truthfully and objectively responded "There is no "pretending" about it. The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower. But, because this nation has a love affair with guns, we put up with thousands of dead people as a result.
And then you deflected and went down another rabbit hole.Yes, I read your article some time ago (at least if memory serves me right and it was yours). And I read your conclusion, which (paraphrasing) was: "I couldn't find a statistical correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate, but I'm sure there is one so therefore more guns = more homicides". At least I think that was your hub and your comment.
Whereas I set out to prove the same thing, collected the data and examined it. Just like you I couldn't find a correlation (let alone proof of causality), but that's where we took different paths for I accepted that startling fact and you stuck with your gut reaction rather than the proof you had accumulated.
All of which is why I challenged you to provide that proof that you are so adamant exists, showing that more guns = more murders. And which you have steadfastly refused, for years, to do.
But I didn't deflect at all: I continue to challenge your statement that "The fact is, if nobody possessed guns, nobody would be killed by them and the homicide rate would be a lot lower", while you continue to refuse to provide supporting evidence.""I couldn't find a statistical correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate, but I'm sure there is one so therefore more guns = more homicides". " - Yes, I said the first part, but not the second. Had I been more precise (and I will go back and change it), I should have said "I couldn't find a statistical correlation at the 95% confidence level between the number of guns and the homicide rate." I also need to go back and relax the confidence interval to where it does become significant. I may have to start from scratch though because it seems all of my spreadsheets, which contained my data, got deleted somehow.
" showing that more guns = more murders." - SEE, there you go again moving the goalposts (and deflecting). I DO NOT claim 'more guns = more murders' (in terms of rates). I DO claim, and proved the following:
- 'the higher the rate of gun ownership = the higher the suicide rate" at a 95% confidence level
- "the laxer the gun safety laws = a higher gun ownership rate"'
Now, in terns if raw numbers "more guns = more murders" is true on the face of it. To claim otherwise is just foolish.
As to the "and the homicide rate would be a lot lower"," part - that again is by logical conclusion. The ONLY way for that not to be true is if EVERY SINGLE death by gun is replaced by death by some other means. I don't think even you would claim that is even a remote possibility."I also need to go back and relax the confidence interval to where it does become significant."
This sounds like why they say that statistics lie. Aren't you just changing things until you get the result you want?
"I DO NOT claim 'more guns = more murders' (in terms of rates)."
True. You reversed it, saying that fewer guns = fewer murders. Personally, I don't see the difference.
"Now, in terns if raw numbers "more guns = more murders" is true on the face of it. To claim otherwise is just foolish."
And there you make the claim again...still without any evidence it is true outside of "To claim otherwise is just foolish". Which is what I complained about.
"As to the "and the homicide rate would be a lot lower"," part - that again is by logical conclusion."
No, that is not logical - it is your opinion. An opinion based on gut feeling rather than facts, and a gut feeling that is not supported by any data that I've seen or heard of. Of course, that means that the silly requirement that even one death negates the statement is ignored.
Either way, though, you have not shown (by anything but bare, unsupported claims) that the statement is false even if that single death is accepted. For all you have been able to show, the homicide rate will rise, not fall, if guns are removed (indeed, I can provide cherry picked evidence that that is true). I can show case after case after case where countries with more guns have a lower homicide rate...just as I can show the opposite."This sounds like why they say that statistics lie. Aren't you just changing things until you get the result you want?" - I'll forgive your false statement to your unfortunate lack of knowledge about statistics. It makes intelligent conversation about the subject almost impossible. Therefore, I will forgo trying to explain to you why you are so wrong. Too bad.
"True. You reversed it, ... " - Playing with words again, I see. That is a waste of everybody's time.
"No, that is not logical - it is your opinion. " - That is, of course, your opinion. Mine is fact, yours is not. You are claiming that taking 100% of the guns off the streets WILL NOT result in the reduction of homicides by gun and the total number of homicides and the homicide rate. ROFLWait, ya gotta explain that 'confidence interval' thing. I'm following this exchange and what I 'guess' "relaxing the confidence interval" means sounds like what Wilderness said.
Does doing so alter the relationships between the data? (surely it doesn't alter the data itself?)
GANo, relaxing the CI doesn't change the data. All that says is finding out where the relationship, if ever, becomes statistically significant? I tells you how robust the relationship is (or isn't).
The standard CI used an a vast majority of the cases is 95%, Sometimes it is 99%, Other times it is 90%. It is not like a switch, there one moment and gone the next.
What the interval says is, for that set of data, there is a 99%, or 95%, or 90%, or 85%, or 80% chance that the results you are looking at are not due to random chance from happening (assuming several things like the distribution of the residuals are normally distributed, or the underlying data is not highly skewed, etc.)
It is another way of saying that "I am x% reasonably certain the results I got didn't simply happen by chance. What Wilderness is attempting to convince people of is that if the correlation is not significant at the 95% level, then there is zero correlation at all. He would try to make that claim even it the results were significant at a 94% CI saying "ah ha! it isn't 95, therefore it must be zero", which is preposterous.
As I recall the data I used, when plotted out, the data had a clear pattern to it, meaning there was a visible correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of violent crime. What observation won't tell you, however, is the strength of that correlation.
Anything above 70% tells me there is a high likelihood of a relationship being there Common sense comes to the same conclusion.If your data, and graph, had a "visible correlation" then it had far more than mine had. I would very much like to see the data, and graph, that produced that visible correlation.
So would I, but as I said, it went to bit heaven and I am having to recollect it. I provide plenty of examples at the most basic level in Part 1, and then expand greatly on that in other parts. The correlation is quite evident.
Well, as I say, my graph looked more like a sine wave than anything showing correlation. It will be interesting to see your data and graph - which countries you use, whether you look at homicide rates or homicide by gun rates, whose data you use, etc.
I didn't use countries, the deep analysis was comparing states. I have addressed comparisons between nations in other places and not too deeply since the results are pretty obvious.
Then perhaps your problem is that states are, all too often, comparing apples to oranges. One can always find a handful (perhaps 5 or 6) similar states, but that hardly makes for a good analysis and using more states brings in far too many variables to make the analysis either.
Actually, that is not correct either. I used 51 data points, one for each state and D.C. One of the questions I am asking is "Does the strength of a states gun safety laws make a difference?" Other questions are whether there is a statistically significant correlation (at the 95% confidence level) between rate of gun ownership and rates of various forms of violent crimes as well as suicides.
You notice that I don't address "causality", although the RAND analysis of Australia's data GA offered does and suggestsHow about a study on the number of crimes that were prevented because of gun ownership? Do you think it could be done?
The studies out there show it is a trade-off between the number of people (often spouses coming home late at night or people needing help at night) accidentally killed by someone "defending" themselves as crimes stopped.
That 'CI' thing caused me to stumble upon this:
RAND: The Effects of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia on Suicide, Homicide, and Mass Shootings
You may have seen it because the essay's conclusions match yours, (but with better academic support, (and graphs, and composition, and . . . )) ;-o.
GAI used to work with RAND a lot during my tenure with the Air Force, visiting their facility in Santa Monica, CA several times to talk about their research. They informally reviewed some of the work I did for the AF while other think tanks and the GAO, did more formal reviews of some of my product.
While I need to do it again, I have read their report on Australia's experience. Thanks.One point that stood out was the estimate that Australia's NFA buy-back only removed about 20% of the nation's long guns. I had the impression that it removed almost all of their long guns.
It seems the later, 2003 handgun, buyback may have impacted their statistics more than the long gun buyback.
As a note, even though I followed your CI thought in the wrong direction—applying it to the data points instead of the correlation coefficient, it looks like the end result is the same: an expansion of the range searched for support of a conclusion that high-confidence numbers didn't find.
GA
You're working me on this one.
It appears that changing the confidence interval does change the range of the values used in the data points. Your comment appears to say that even if a correlation isn't found in standardized relationships, it might be found in extensions of that standardized data because common sense tells you that a correlation is there.
You say you could accept a 30% extrapolation to find data conducive to a correlation. That much accepted-deviation doesn't seem very sound to me.
It also doesn't seem to follow the logic of finding a correlation. If a correlation isn't strong enough to be seen in standardized, (your 95%), data, then reaching to the fringes of that data, (relaxing the CI), could only, and possibly, show a ghost of a correlation through the extension of the data set.
Changing the CI doesn't change the strength of a correlation, (if it exists), so if you did find one it would be so weak that it breaks in any data set below the extended fringe values chosen. That isn't a correlation I would want to hang my hat on.
Without an economic or statistical background, I am stuck using the 'logic' you offered. For now, the rebuttal to relaxing the CI makes sense. It is massaging the numbers to get the result you expect.
GA"It appears that changing the confidence interval does change the range of the values used in the data points. " - You will have to explain that. Let me put together an example for you
I can explain so you can spot where I went wrong. In checking for CI, one example was a data point of "35". With 100% CI that number is solid at 35, applying a 95% CI gives that number a +/- range. The lower the CI, (70%?), the greater the +/- range. Is that a correct description?
Following your point of decreasing the CI, it appears, to me, to be saying that there is no correlation, (correlation coefficient?), using the mean data point, but maybe a +/- aspect of that data point may show a correlation. ie. no correlation at "35" but maybe there is one in the range of 32.9 to 37.1. Is that right?
It seems, as you noted, that a CI is a fair reflection of the confidence in the data point number. Your statement indicates low confidence in the numbers you used, so you increase the range of possibilities, (lower the CI), to capture what you believe to be a more true number. Am I on the wrong track?
Does this boil down to you not trusting the numbers you used to be true numbers?
GAIt has nothing to do with whether I trust my numbers or not (or my methodology for that matter). They are solid. But your analysis is correct but your conclusion is not.
Using your example, I could say with 100% confidence that the "35" is correct, ASSUMING, I have tested 100% of the population. Since most sampling is just that, sampling, one can never be 100% confident that the next sample won't come up with a different answer, if fact, it probably will.
But, when I say I am 95% certain, I am saying that there is a 95% chance that the next sample with come in with a result of "35" +/- a certain amount. OR, I could say with 90% confidence that the next sample will result in "35" ++/-- a certain amount. OR, I could say with 80% confidence ...
Does that help?
The lower the confidence level, the more likely the numbers come from different populations that are not correlated. It doesn't say there is NO correlation or that there is anything wrong with the numbers.I have bumbled my way to an understanding that the CI factor is more related to the strength of a correlation than the sampling's data set. If I have that part right, then my original point, although misdirected, still seems to hold: high confidence numbers don't show what is expected so a larger range created by a relaxed confidence, (CI).
For instance; a 95% CI might return a strength, (coefficient), of +.2, (essentially no correlation), and a relaxed CI of 70% might return a coefficient of +.5, (still a negligible strength and still not supporting a strong correlation).
Am I still on the wrong track?
GANope you are spot on, but I think your inference is still misguided since interpreting statistics is more of an art than a science. But first let me give you a concrete example.
20 students, 10 male and 10 female, take a test. And we want to know is there a difference in how well males did as opposed to females. More specifically, is mean1 - mean2 = 0?
The average score for the males is 5.5 with a sum of the squares of deviation (SS) being 82.5. For the females, they are 10.5 and 582.50
Are we 95% confident that those means come from the same population? No, we are not.
Are we 90% (which is still pretty certain) confident that those means come from the same population? Yes, we are.So back to my analysis. Am I 95% confident that the rate of gun ownership in America is correlated with homicides? No, I am not. Am I 90% confident? I won't know until I run the numbers.
"Mine is fact, yours is not. You are claiming that taking 100% of the guns off the streets WILL NOT result in the reduction of homicides by gun..."
Now that one is a flat out lie, for I have always pointed out that if there are no guns there will be no homicides by gun. Always. In not a single instance over my some 12 years here have I said that removing guns would not reduce the number of murders (or killings or deaths or homicides or any other terminology you choose to use) by guns. For shame."Now that one is a flat out lie, for I have always pointed out that if there are no guns there will be no homicides by gun. " - I am glad you finally admitted that, because up to this point, you haven't.
"In not a single instance over my some 12 years here have I said that removing guns would not reduce the number of murders (or killings or deaths or homicides or any other terminology you choose to use) by guns. " - Then why do you object so hard when I make that claim? One can only assume you disagree with it.
Another Trump Republican does his thing with a gun. This time threatening a Senate candidate in Utah.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/27/politics … index.htmlTry as hard as I could, but I could not find anything in your link to indicate that the accused (Jack Aaron Whelchel) has any connection to Trump, approves of Trump as either a President or citizen or is a Republican.
Are you making things up or was there other information you neglected to supply?I suppose it could be a radical liberal who wants Lee to win. But which is more likely?
It is called drawing logical inferences:
1. It was right after a McMuillin rally
2. McMullin is opposing Lee
3. This is very Trumpy Utah we are talking about.
4. Trump Republicans have proven themselves to be violent.
Nah, I'll go with Trump Republican.
With America awash in guns, this and several others this weekend has become the NORM.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/29/us/safew … index.htmlTop 10 homicide rates in the United States:
Mississippi
Louisiana
Kentucky
Alabama
Missouri
South Carolina
New Mexico
Georgia
Arkansas
Tennessee
Actually, if Mississippi was a country, it would have the 23rd highest murder rate.
All in all these states have some of the loosest gun laws.
And are among the worst states nationally in terms of education and other socioeconomic factors. Almost all net beneficiaries of federal funds, receiving more money than paying in taxes.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisMurphyC … 53/photo/1Machine guns wreck havoc across the US. Also, a 3-year old accidentally kills self in Gainesville, FL after getting hold of an UNSECURED LOADED pistol (hopefully, they are prosecuting the father - that is much better than passing a law requiring they be secured).
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/us/autom … index.htmlFour year old takes loaded gun to class - Father faces charges. YEA!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/us/child … index.html
In Arizona this week, a second-grader was found with two guns and ammunition at Cochise Elementary School, the sheriff's office there said in a Facebook post. The child's parents were called and a juvenile referral made with charges of misconduct with a weapon and minor in possession of a firearm, according to the sheriff's office. -
- The parents should have been arrested as well unless they can prove the kid stole them from a secure location.I would go with that (parents arrest) too, as long as it was their guns. Guns picked up in the street, from a neighbor kid or house, bartered for with a piece of candy - these kinds of things cannot be immediately controlled by parents and it is likely they would not know for weeks or months.
I would disagree there - that would be much like the poor girl that can't get an abortion for her child with acrania (sp?). The state says a doctor would not be prosecuted for performing one, while the law is explicit that she COULD be prosecuted.
Same thing for the parents with a child that stole a gun from the neighbor and hid it under the porch, taking it to school the next day. They COULD be prosecuted if it isn't written into the law that they could not.Not sure I follow. In the acrania case, the law was too vague and left the doctors in limbo.
Not sure what the parents would be prosecuted for under the scenario you laid out. Maybe the people the kid stole from if the guns weren't properly secured.
And more gun violence. BTW, for every one I report here, I read about 20 more that I don't get around to posting.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/virgi … index.htmlA blurb from your offered links would be helpful in deciding whether to click or not.
GAThat is probably true.
For this one, someone apparently shot up 7 (none fatally yet) people in Norfolk, VA. Some of them were students a Norfolk State University.
Then this one just popped up:
5 people injured in a mass shooting in Charleston, SC. My guess it is a bar fight of some sort.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/charl … index.html
How many more kids feel "They Won't Protect Us" and refuse to return to school? This is not the America I remember growing up where all I had to worry about was getting nuked by the Russians. That was an unreal threat. Being wiped out in a school shooting is a very real threat indeed.
Also, it is expensive in more ways than the lose of lives to people wielding mass killing devices - they are not going to reopen Robb Elementary but demolish it instead. This is a fate that meets many schools where mass killings took place. It is SO common, the federal gov't has set up a special grant to help defray the costs.
(It is good to know that it is costing those who insist on keeping weapons of war in the hands of anyone who wants one a little bit of their tax dollars.)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/us/uvald … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/us/schoo … index.htmlThree weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023. That says it all about the lack of gun safety laws and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/politics … index.htmlIn regard to mass shootings and Gun strong gun laws. It appears that strong gun laws do not stop mass shootings.
" As of January 2023, California had the most mass shootings in the United States, with 24 total shootings since 1982. The source defines a mass shooting as a shooting where three or more people were killed." https://www.statista.com/statistics/811 … -by-state/
Yet California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/com … s-america/
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws … alifornia/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/c … -laws.html
It would appear strong gun laws are not curbing mass shootings in California.Strong gun laws were NEVER intended to STOP all mass shootings. This may be a surprise, but they are intended to reduce the number of them. For example, the assault weapon ban in 1975 had a significant impact on reducing mass killings.
I figured some one would bring up California gun laws. All that tells me is the larger point was missed."Strong gun laws were NEVER intended to STOP all mass shootings."
Such a strange response, you clearly contradict your own words --- The very words that I responded to.
"MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Three weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023. That says it all about the lack of gun safety laws and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them."
Do you read your posts, or just change your train of thought
frequently? Or again are you just being argumentive?
You accused me of missing the point --- I missed no point, I think anyone reading your comment, and my reply can ascertain the context of both comments.
You just seem to be all over the place, and contradict your own views so frequently.
Tip -- maybe share your view, and not what Google tells you your view should be. You have personal views I am sure.
:I'm sorry, where is the contradiction? Are you assuming facts not in evidence?
It is very clear that you contradicted yourself. I will copy and paste just so anyone else is interested in seeing how badly you contradicted yourself. LOL
ECO stated - "Strong gun laws were NEVER intended to STOP all mass shootings."
Such a strange response, you clearly contradict your own words --- The very words that I responded to.
"MY ESOTERIC Then WROTE:
Three weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023. That says it all about the LACK OF GUN SAFETY LAWS and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them."
You have a true problem with context.Sorry, those are two separate trains of thought. In one case I contradicted your claim that gun laws were meant to STOP gun violence. That is clearly wrong.
On the other hand, the gist of the other statement is that lax guns laws inevitably lead to higher rates of murder like we say in California in the last couple of days.
It is quote a stretch to equate those two. I will say, I should have added the word "EFFECTIVE" I forgot how picky your side is.
I was going to say the same to you - except replace Google, which is a fine way to find information, with Right-Wing propaganda.
I am not the one that says one thing one moment, and then the complete opposite the next. As I said, our views are very far apart. I as a rule will stick with personal views.
I also look to several outlets for info. You appear to stick to CNN University Of Propaganda.
I will give it to you, you stick in there with CNN, nowadays most won't admit to reading or listening to CNN.
Jan 24, 2023 --- "CNN placed 18th in total primetime viewers with a paltry 444,000 viewers on average, and sixth in total day with 417,000 . In Adults 25-54, CNN placed 29th in primetime with 93,000 on average, and 15th in total day with 80,000 on average. The 80,000 A25-54 average in a total day represents the network’s smallest delivery since 2014." https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/week-of … ay/522618/
Profits Slump at CNN as Ratings Plummet
The network is on a pace to drop below $1 billion in profit for the first time in years, according to people familiar with its operations, amid steep declines in TV viewership.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/busi … licht.html
They may not be around too much longer.Not sure what your CNN-Profit link has to do with anything other than Mr. Licht is getting off to a rough start.
As to viewership - since your refuse to do an apples-to-apples comparison, there is no meaning to your statistic.
Also, the article also said Ratings are down from their Trump-era heights across cable news,", although CNN is more pronounced. They don't get into why though. Is there more, better competition. Are other mainstream media getting a larger share of the pie?As you like to say - Don't Hold Your Breath.
Make that 37 mass shootings!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/us/half- … index.html
Make that 38 mass shootings!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/us/des-m … index.htmlOther countries do better. We should be able to figure out how to do better.
I will be more direct. MOST countries do MUCH better and we know how they do it. Sadly, the politically powerful on the Right simply don't give a damn. Just let the bodies keep dropping in ever increasing numbers.
I'm thinking that even though California has some strict gun legislation we have a national problem with people being able to order individual parts for guns and assemble them. Also, guns flow in from neighboring states with more lax laws.
We might...when we quit assigning blame to an inanimate object and look within the psyche of Americans to try and understand the propensity for violence.
Until that happens we are stuck with piles of bodies, whether by gunshot or some other weapon.I think we have tons of research around gun violence, who generally commits such acts and why along with early warning signs. We all know there is very little support for any spending on programs to address such issues. Politicians would rather this issue continue as a political football. It's another issue that goes into the category of too difficult and too large of a problem for their meager minds to deal with.
I find it interesting that gun ownership is also relatively high in Canada, at about thirty-five firearms per hundred residents (ranking fifth globally), but the country does not struggle with a similar level of gun violence as in the United States.
This seems to be a problem we could solve, if we wanted to.I think so. We can at least identify it, and quit pretending that a chunk of iron is the root cause of the violence in America.
One has only to compare gun ownership rates with homicide rates worldwide to see there is no correlation between the two. Or look at the tool used for murder in the US; there are more murders committed with hands and feet than rifles, including that dreaded "assault rifle"...so we attack the assault rifle rather than looking for causes.
But it is politically expedient to blame the tool rather than the hand that holds it. One capitalizes on fear while the other accuses us, the people, for the problem. Which is easier for politicians is obvious.
This is very true, it would seem we could do better.
Related Discussions
- 204
Why not pass Gun Control laws in pieces?
by Don Bobbitt 8 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
- 51
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by strengthcourageme 9 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
- 1302
Gun Control
by lesliebyars 11 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
- 135
Gun Control Who
by Judy Specht 11 years ago
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-c … z2Halds2vi
- 212
Beto - Hell Yes We're Going to Take Your Guns Away
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Beto O'Ruarke put it out there, center stage:"Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ."Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles, how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?A couple of...
- 262
The shooting in Thousand Oaks California.
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every...