Gun Control, Mental healthcare, big brother... thread (1 Viewer)

[VanillaGorilla]

Fuck the 2nd amendment yo

 

[blue32]

I think this definitely rates a "cool story, bro"

barfo

Actually, it was.

 

[HailBlazers]

How We All Miss the Point on School Shootings

These shooters know what they are doing. They’re not “crazy.” They don’t just “snap.” Most of them spend months or years planning their massacres. Elliot Rodger had apparently been planning his shooting for over a year. You don’t just show up with a 140-page manifesto and a large stockpile of weapons one day. You work at it for a long time. And you plan not only the violence, but the presentation for the audience, the performance — what they will see from you, what they will hear from you, the reasons why, the message. It’s all very conscious and deliberate.

And it works. Their killing sprees are specifically targeted to generate the most fear and uncertainty from the public, because the more fear and uncertainty they generate, the more attention they get. They then use all of the attention as a platform to promote themselves or whatever complaints they may have against society. It’s the Columbine formula. It works. And as Eric Harris pointed out in his journal, it’s not about the guns. It’s about the television. The films. The fame. The revolution. If this sounds like a familiar strategy, that’s because it is.

For a country that is so single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it’s jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the exact same strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society. Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification.

 

[donkiez]

Oh really?
In "civilized" countries that have banned firearms, knives are now one of the preferred instruments of death. If someone wants to kill they'll find a way.
After the fire arm ban, the UK has become one of the most violent countries in the EU if not the most violent. And why not? Attack someone weaker than yourself and you can be reasonably certain
that they won't be able to retaliate. Home invasion robberies are particularly popular in the UK because thugs know that the weak and elderly have been disarmed and have no means
to protect themselves.
http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...n-ban-uk-urges-save-life-surrender-your-knife
Where do we stop banning "easily obtainable" things that can be used as weapons by criminals & mentally unstable people? We have around 22,000 laws on the books pertaining to and regulating firearms.
Which of those aren't common sense and why won't those darn criminals abide by them? Not common sense enough?

you should read all 37 pages. lol. This has been covered at length. The UK classifies violence in a different way than the US, so to start off its apples and oranges. Then of course the knife murder rate will go up if there are not guns, that should be obvious, what you want is the overall murder rate. Here you go.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Im sure everyone will read into this chart what they want to but as you can see after hand guns were banned in 1997 there was essentially no change in the homicide rate for 4 years, then there was a big spike and drop and now its lower than when it started. My guess is the spike and drop have nothing to do with gun control and rather are related to other social/economic issues. This article seems to attribute the homicide spike to gang bangers.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

While the number of homicides from gun crime remained largely static for over a decade, 2007 proved a decisive year for this issue. A wave of gang related incidents were committed by teenagers against other teenagers, with some high profile cases ending in fatalities. London, Manchester and Nottingham were most notably affected.

In August 2007, these attacks culminated in the murder of an 11-year-old Liverpool schoolboy, Rhys Jones, hit whilst playing football outside his local pub. Following a lengthy police investigation and a trial lasting over two months, an 18 year old youth, Sean Mercer, a member of the 'Croxteth crew' gang, was convicted in December 2008 of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

and here are some UK firearm stats. a few years old but its enough to get the idea.

Firearm Crime Statistics

Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.

In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences, 0.3% of all recorded crimes.
There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the general decline since 2005/06.
There were 4,203 recorded crimes in which air weapons were reportedly used during 2010/11, a fall of 15% compared with the previous year and 70% below the peak recorded in 2002/03.
In Scotland the police recorded 643 offences which involved the alleged use of a firearm, a 24% decrease on 2009/10. The number of offences has fallen in each of the last four years.
A non-air weapon was alleged to have been used in 410 offences, marginally lower than in 2009/10, while there were 233 alleged air-weapon offences, 45% lower than the previous year.

In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%) accounted for almost two-thirds of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11. Criminal damage offences represented 29% of all firearm offences recorded.
Due to the different legal system in Scotland it is not possible to provide directly comparable data. ‘Reckless conduct with firearms’ accounted for 21% of alleged firearm offences in 2010/11, minor assault for 17% and robbery for 14%.
9.3% of all homicides committed during 2010/11in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm, the highest proportion since 2001/02. By contrast 2.2% of Scottish homicides involved the use of a firearm.

In England and Wales handguns were the most commonly used firearm, with the weapon accounting for 44% of non-air weapon firearm offences recorded. Imitation weapons were used in 23%, shotguns in 9% and rifles in 1% of such offences.
In Scotland imitation weapons and handguns were used most often, each accounting for 23% and 22% of the total number of non-air weapon firearm offences respectively. The largest proportion of firearm offences involved weapons in the ‘Other firearm’ category.

In England and Wales a firearm was fired in 37% of all non-air weapon offences and in 84% of air weapon offences.
In Scotland a firearm was fired in 40% of all non-air weapon offences and in 76% of air weapon offences.

In England and Wales there were 388 firearm offences in which there was a fatal or serious injury, 13% lower than in 2009/10. The number of offences resulting in slight injury in 2010/11 was 5% lower than the number recorded in the previous year. In almost 80% of firearms offences no injury occurred.
The injury classification is different in Scotland. There were 2 fatal injuries and 109 non-fatal injuries in 2010/11. The total number of injuries was the lowest number recorded for at least a decade.

In England and Wales, in 2010/11, there were on average 13 non-air weapon firearms offences per 100,000 population. The rate was highest in London (35 per 1,000 population), and West Midlands (34). The lowest rate was recorded in Lincolnshire (2.4).
Of the alleged firearms offences in Scotland in 2010/11 the majority (56%) were recorded by Grampian police.

Source: House of Commons - 30 January 2012

Firearms offences are geographically concentrated in London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

At the same time young people are disproportionately the victims of gun crime: 15 to 29-year-olds comprise 20 per cent of the population but were victims in 45 per cent of firearms offences (excluding air weapons) in 2010/11.

The maximum penalty for committing a firearms offence under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, which includes “supply” and “possession” but not “possession with intent to supply” is 10 years’ imprisonment. The mandatory minimum sentence for those aged 18 and over is five years’ imprisonment, and three years for those aged 16-17 years.

Under Section 16 of the 1968 Act it is an offence to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The current maximum penalty for illegally importing firearms or ammunition under Section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, where the weapons are subject to general prohibition under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, is a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

Source: Home Office – February 2012

Responses to Home Office consultation on firearms law:

We received 96 responses to the consultation with a majority supporting the changes to the legislation outlined in the consultation document.

85% of respondents supported the view that the maximum sentence for illegal importation of firearms should be increased.

76% supported the view that a new offence of possession with intent to supply is needed and should be introduced.

Half of the respondents who supported the creation of a new offence and an increase in the sentence for importation stated that the maximum sentence should be life.

A common statement among respondents with experience in dealing with gun crime was that sentencing provisions for the importation and supply of firearms should be aligned with the importation and supply of class A drugs, which have a maximum sentence of life.

Source: Home Office – October 2012

 

[magnifier661]

you should read all 37 pages. lol. This has been covered at length. The UK classifies violence in a different way than the US, so to start off its apples and oranges. Then of course the knife murder rate will go up if there are not guns, that should be obvious, what you want is the overall murder rate. Here you go.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Im sure everyone will read into this chart what they want to but as you can see after hand guns were banned in 1997 there was essentially no change in the homicide rate for 4 years, then there was a big spike and drop and now its lower than when it started. My guess is the spike and drop have nothing to do with gun control and rather are related to other social/economic issues. This article seems to attribute the homicide spike to gang bangers.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime


and here are some UK firearm stats. a few years old but its enough to get the idea.

Bro, violent crimes are still violent crimes. Why are you trying to downplay it? If the rate of gun homicides are way down, does that matter violent crime is still 3 times higher than the US? Seems very straw man to me

 

[donkiez]

Bro, violent crimes are still violent crimes. Why are you trying to downplay it? If the rate of gun homicides are way down, does that matter violent crime is still 3 times higher than the US? Seems very straw man to me

I thought we already talked about this. Comparing stats with the same name but different qualifiers is not genuine. Beside I dont think I downplayed anything, I just presented data.

 

[magnifier661]

I thought we already talked about this. Comparing stats with the same name but different qualifiers is not genuine. Beside I dont think I downplayed anything, I just presented data.

It is absolutely genuine. Violence is violence.

 

[donkiez]

It is absolutely genuine. Violence is violence.

Its not the same violence. You are being intentionally misleading to back your point. Stop it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

Once you know this, Bier wrote, "it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the U.S. and the U.K. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes."

 

[donkiez]

Its not the same violence. You are being intentionally misleading to back your point. Stop it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Our ruling

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False.

 

[riverman]

Its not the same violence. You are being intentionally misleading to back your point. Stop it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

It's mags y'know

 

[blue32]

Even a smaller difference, still is telling, considering they banned guns. To me, it shows that even a gun ban doesn't resolve the issue at hand.

 

[magnifier661]

Its not the same violence. You are being intentionally misleading to back your point. Stop it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

If you read back, I am using the data from ONS. That is a reflection of http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...Use-of-weapons-and-injuries-in-violent-crimes

48% of their violent crime uses a weapon, which would be the same as the FBI's classification of a violent crime. https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/manuals/v1all.pdf "
a. 13A Aggravated Assault

Definition: An unlawful attack by one person upon another wherein the offender uses a weapon or displays it in a threatening manner, or the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness. "

According to the FBI, the assault doesn't even have to involve any injury, as long as a weapon was used that was threatening.

 

[magnifier661]

It's mags y'know

Except mags is right in this case... Sorry

 

[magnifier661]

So according to the worksheet by ONS for the year 2014. (per 100k)

Rape: Q1: 17.1, Q2: 18.6 Q3: 21.90 Q4: 22.7
Robbery: Q1: 13.9, Q2: 12.4 Q3: 12.1, Q4: 13.2
Arson: Q1: 120.0, Q2: 126.4, Q3: 125.8, Q4: 127.8
Assault Q1: 160.2, Q2: 182.3, Q3: 197.2, Q4: 201.0 (48% of numbers, since its the same qualifier) = Q1: 87.5, Q2: 87.5, Q3: 94.6, Q4: 96.5

In other words, 998 exact violent crimes stated by the FBI per 100,000, compared to the 335 violent crimes per 100,000 in the united states. Looks like it's truly 3 times higher than the US as exactly what I said before.

 

[Natebishop3]

When I went to Boot Camp many years ago now, myself and a guy from the Louisiana Bayous were put in a company comprised of about half from NYC and half from Chicago. The Great Lakes
training center was closed at that time for some reason, so everyone was sent to San Diego. So a West Coast boy being grouped up with the big city boys was unusual. Man they were a hip bunch,
they had a quip for every event and knew how to hold their mouth right! The Bayou boy and I sort of migrated together early on.

As time went by it slowly became apparent, these hipsters didn't really know shit, actually pretty damn dumb. Well, lacked experience might be more truthful. First off only about 10 guys of the 62 in the company could swim! The Bayou boy and I among the swimmers. Hell I even swam the length of the pool under water, not to show off but because it was easier form me since I learned to do it that way, being heavier than water. Then fire fighting training was another eye opener. How easy the city boys panic in room full of smoke when all you had to do was put the fucking fire out.
Of course you needed to filter your breath air with your clothing for a bit while snuffing the fire, but not so hard.

Then rifle training! Holy hell, the Bayou boy and I were the only ones that knew which end of the fucking rifle did what! Day on day of dry drill with this bunch of morons learning which end of the rifle goes to the shoulder. Then we got to the firing line at Camp Pendleton. Geez, I was excited, that M1 rifle seemed like a very fine weapon and I was anxious to put it to the test.
But I had to wait my turn, I had come up last as assigned by the Chief. So I watched these city boys flinch and jerk off shots, Grimace and fire! Geez it was appauling, I have to maybe go to war with this bunch?!?!?

Finally my turn came. The Marine Sargent on the line gave me one round. I took aim and fired. The target crew waved me off as a miss. I said, Sargent! There has to be something wrong with this
weapon! He called for a recheck of the target. Hot damn! Bulls Eye! Those guys had been so used to misses they hardly payed attention.
The Sargent gave me a full clip for the M1 and told me, rapid fire lets see what you got! I did just that with pleasure. All bulls but one and it was in the black. I remember years later seeing a movie staring Gary Cooper, Sargent York, where that same scene was in the movie all most exactly.

We don't need more gun control, we need more gun training for the youth in this country. Fear of weapons is making terrible laws and bringing us ridiculous policies.

My dad bought an M1 a few years back. I have shot 30-06 (I have a Remington 720), but I had never shot that caliber without some kind of shoulder pad. Holy hell that sucker kicks! I can't even imagine the boys in WWII shooting that thing constantly. I'm guessing you build up some wicked callouses.

 

[donkiez]

Even a smaller difference, still is telling, considering they banned guns. To me, it shows that even a gun ban doesn't resolve the issue at hand.

This is actually what I got out of the data also. If you take the 2007 ramp and fall out of it then it shows very little change in overall homicide rate after guns were banned, and if you normalize the violence stats then it shows not much changed there either way also. That doesnt mean it wasn't completely effective or ineffective, but it appears to have less effect than either side wants to admit.

 

[Natebishop3]

The only leg to stand on for a gun ban would be a removal of being able to inflict a lot of damage in a short amount of time. So it's possible that we would see less school shootings, which is great, but I don't think it would cut down on violence overall. Also, the suicides would just shift from guns to something else like jumping from a high place, or pills, etc.

One thing that never seems to be talked about: how much gun violence would disappear if drugs were legal? I know there was a huge drop in gun violence after prohibition ended. It certainly lowered the number of police officers that were killed in the line of duty.

 

[magnifier661]

 

[Natebishop3]

Did he actually say that? I feel like there's a lot of quotes that get attributed to the founding fathers, but there's never a source cited.

 

[magnifier661]

Did he actually say that? I feel like there's a lot of quotes that get attributed to the founding fathers, but there's never a source cited.

Just looked it up. They said it's false... My bad...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orge-washington-offer-support-individual-gun/

This was the closest thing they could find...

The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

 

[kingslayer]

Just looked it up. They said it's false... My bad...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orge-washington-offer-support-individual-gun/

This was the closest thing they could find...

The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

From that link:

Experts say there’s no evidence that Washington ever said that -- and there are indications that Washington, if anything, favored the arming of trained militias rather than wide swaths of the population. We rate the claim False.

That meme gets tossed around by Tea Party nutjobs a lot. No surprise that it's inaccurate.

 

[Natebishop3]

Just looked it up. They said it's false... My bad...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orge-washington-offer-support-individual-gun/

This was the closest thing they could find...

The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

That's the problem. There are so many memes attributed to our founding fathers, it's hard to figure out which ones are real. I've seen a lot attributed about religion as well.

 

[magnifier661]

That's the problem. There are so many memes attributed to our founding fathers, it's hard to figure out which ones are real. I've seen a lot attributed about religion as well.

Yeah man... Should have fact checked before posting it. My bad

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Mags, I worked with what has to be your identical twin brother for almost 30 years and I loved him like he was my own brother, right wing whacko beliefs be damned. I miss daily interaction with him, looney as he is. And like you, he was rarely an asshole about it. You guys just state your version of "the facts" and then gird your loins to take on all comers. Its rarely about being "right, it's more about getting your version of the "truth" out there. As with my friend, politics is your hobby. Thank you for filling a hole in my life (seriously). You guys at least make me do my homework, even if it's just to rebut your particular brand of crazy bullshit....

 

[barfo]

The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

Since George himself said that, would you agree that it would not be a violation of your second amendment rights if every gun purchase involved a mandatory spanking?

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Since George himself said that, would you agree that it would not be a violation of your second amendment rights if every gun purchase involved a mandatory spanking?

barfo

Depends... who is doing the spanking?

 

[barfo]

Depends... who is doing the spanking?

 

[MarAzul]

I'm guessing you build up some wicked callouses.

No! I never fire the M1 again after boot camp. As I recall, I fired 17 round with it. one single and then a 8 round clip at 100 yards, then the Sargent give me another clip and told me to go for
the 1000 yard target. It took a few moments for the pit crew to get down there. I managed to get 3 in the black I think and 4 more on the target. But that was tough shot for the rather course
peep sight on the M1.

Later I used a .270 Winchester in the field.

I didn't notice the M1 had a bad recoil, but then I was accustom to my 45-70 and it's 405 grain bullet. Now that sucker would punish you.

 

[MarAzul]

She doesn't strike me as the sort that would have much to do with a pirate that doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a gun.

 

[Sedatedfork]

She doesn't strike me as the sort that would have much to do with a pirate that doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a gun.

I think her gun is concealed.