If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising. Thanks, American media   (latimes.com) divider line 832
    More: Followup, Americans, Bureau of Justice Statistics, gun murders, spree killers, Pew Research Center, Small Arms Survey  
•       •       •

6213 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



832 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 10:47:19 AM  

sammyk: draypresct: Take a look at figure 42 of http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.

Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.

You can take a couple things away from that graph. I noticed homocides by all "other" weapons had a steady but moderate decline. But homocide by gun was all over the place.

Crack cocaine happened in the 90's.


Makes sense.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:21 AM  

mrshowrules: HeadLever: mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller.  Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment.  Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

I see what you meant.  I disagree with that interpretation but I'm not on the SCOTUS.


Let me guess, only cops and rich people should have the right to protect themselves?
 
2013-05-08 10:47:30 AM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.


You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:42 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Well I am having a Sandy Hook memorial long pig BBQ and turkey shoot where we are giving away a brand new AR-15.


I LOL'd a little at that.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:44 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right.

Are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that you don't believe are individual rights?  Or is the 2nd just a glaring exception?


The second is it.
 
2013-05-08 10:48:06 AM  

pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.


It tends to disprove their narrative of the gun being responsible for crime, and not the individual.  So they resort to the only debate strategy they ever seem to use, ad hominem.
 
2013-05-08 10:48:33 AM  

GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?


Why would you want to do that?
 
2013-05-08 10:50:06 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right.

Are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that you don't believe are individual rights?  Or is the 2nd just a glaring exception?


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is said to reference a "collective right" because it defines the right as belonging to "people" instead of to individuals, which no other Amendment does, if the wording of the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are ignored.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:09 AM  

CPennypacker: The second is it.


And you don't find it the least bit odd?

Dimensio: You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.


That too.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:14 AM  

CPennypacker: Heller doesn't limit all regulation. It even says so in the majority opinion.


That is correct.  However, it does negate the attempted use of 'well regulated milita' to enact any gun control.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:38 AM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.


You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:41 AM  

Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.


Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?
 
2013-05-08 10:51:37 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The second is it.

And you don't find it the least bit odd?


No. Should I? Should I apply all of my opinions on unrelated topics universally?
 
2013-05-08 10:52:00 AM  

CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.


But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.
 
2013-05-08 10:52:09 AM  

GoldSpider: Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.

Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.


Yes, I am just using the funny words that mean nothing. The Constitution is just like Leviticus; so just pick out whatever you like right?
/guess what I'm imagining now?
 
2013-05-08 10:52:58 AM  

pdee: CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.


Because its not the race, its the economic condition. The fact that race correlates is the fault of history.
 
2013-05-08 10:53:13 AM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.


Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.
 
2013-05-08 10:53:47 AM  

Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist? History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful. Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.


A) Why do we assume suicide is a bad thing? They can't all be winners.

B) If [people] don't exist the suicide rate is zero. Your logic culminates at banning people.
 
2013-05-08 10:53:49 AM  

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.

Well, duh.  Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes.  Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen.  My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces.  Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime).   If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...


While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.
 
2013-05-08 10:54:37 AM  

CPennypacker: because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do.


The fact that We The People have allowed our government to breach its constitutional constraints does not mean it hasn't happened.  Some of us aren't happy about that, but you're free to disagree (until that too becomes a "collective right", I suppose).
 
2013-05-08 10:54:51 AM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The second is it.

And you don't find it the least bit odd?

No. Should I? Should I apply all of my opinions on unrelated topics universally?


So the founders got everything right, except for the one thing with which you strongly disagree? That's...convenient.
 
2013-05-08 10:54:58 AM  

soakitincider: 2nd amendment:
"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. "


the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Research what you cite. The right isn't absolute; it's qualifier is right there in the text. The amendment makes plain that the right exists so that the people could bring their personal arms to form a militia as opposed to the Republic keeping a standing army.

Funny thing is, today the Republic keeps a standing army.
 
2013-05-08 10:55:16 AM  

HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?


This is where gun nuts always go wrong.  No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.
 
2013-05-08 10:56:03 AM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.

I'm not in favor of gun rights

I don't have you fav'd at all for a reason. Who the fark are you?

My mistake

I never said I was . . .

For reference, my official personal stance is that I disagree with the Heller decision and I think that guns should be considered legal but well regulated and not as an individual right

/the more you know


If you don't mind my asking, why? I don't follow the logic of it being a collective right when all the others are individual rights.
 
2013-05-08 10:56:37 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the  Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us  well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all  well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a  well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every  well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her  well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every  well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.
 
2013-05-08 10:56:55 AM  

GnomePaladin: HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?

This is where gun nuts always go wrong.  No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.


That banning the presence of pistol grips and collapsing stocks on popular and rarely criminally misused rifle models are claimed to be "common sense steps" causes many gun rights advocates to be averse to proposals of what are claimed to be "common sense steps".
 
2013-05-08 10:57:07 AM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.

Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.


You know, when someone expresses their opinion, plainly states that they know it is their opinion and not the law, and that they agree with the dissenting opinion of the case which was written, may I add, by Supreme Court Justices, it kind of makes you look like a reactionary crazy person when you won't let them have ther opinion.

I think your opinion is wrong too but I'm not trying to beat you over the head with the bill of rights like a nutter.
 
2013-05-08 10:58:30 AM  

Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?


The US sucks compared to other industrialized countries regardless of the metric you use.
 
2013-05-08 10:58:40 AM  

Ablejack: Yes, I am just using the funny words that mean nothing.


You're applying a modern definition to words written 200 years ago.

CPennypacker: No. Should I?


When I see a glaring exception in my analysis of data, I question my analysis, not the data.
 
2013-05-08 10:59:29 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The second is it.

And you don't find it the least bit odd?

No. Should I? Should I apply all of my opinions on unrelated topics universally?

So the founders got everything right, except for the one thing with which you strongly disagree? That's...convenient.


I wouldn't disagree with it if it was right. And for the record, nobody has a time phone to the founders, so we're talking about the current inrerpretation of the court, not the founders.
 
2013-05-08 10:59:59 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Abortion, it is the root cause of all drops in crime statistics. Why if we aborted every baby whose parents don't make 50,000 a year each America would become a paradise on Earth.


I realize this is a troll... but abortion is not a good practice. i that life is so disposable degrades all of us. killing off the urban poor may be a nice taking point in your econ class, but it's vile and racist imo.

recent mass murderers were from families that did have access to mental health services. the 9/11 guys were also well educated. murder is not just about wealth, even if the murder of the wealthy is what we talk about.

/ now watch this drive
 
2013-05-08 11:00:03 AM  

Tomahawk513: While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.


That's interesting.  How does that explain the fact that there's about a 2% difference between the U.S. and U.K. suicide rates considering guns are infinitely more common and available in the U.S.?
 
2013-05-08 11:00:19 AM  

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.

Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.

You know, when someone expresses their opinion, plainly states that they know it is their opinion and not the law, and that they agree with the dissenting opinion of the case which was written, may I add, by Supreme Court Justices, it kind of makes you look like a reactionary crazy person when you won't let them have ther opinion.

I think your opinion is wrong too but I'm not trying to beat you over the head with the bill of rights like a nutter.


You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?
 
2013-05-08 11:00:49 AM  

GoldSpider: Ablejack: Yes, I am just using the funny words that mean nothing.

You're applying a modern definition to words written 200 years ago.

CPennypacker: No. Should I?

When I see a glaring exception in my analysis of data, I question my analysis, not the data.


Its not data. Its one of a list of ten. If you disagreed with one of them I wouldn't think it odd or inconsistent that you agreed with the rest. Its not dogma. I really don't follow your logic here.
 
2013-05-08 11:01:05 AM  

GnomePaladin: This is where gun nuts always go wrong. No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.


Funny way to spell 'retarded'.  For example - if the gun control advocates wanted to pass the background check during the last episode of epic failure, why did they insert the need to register the type of wepon as well?  They know that is a non-starter with the gun rights crowd.  Especially since it lends nothing to the actual process of a background check.

I suspect that if they would have stripped this provision, it would have likely passed.
 
2013-05-08 11:02:53 AM  

Tomahawk513: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.

Well, duh.  Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes.  Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen.  My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces.  Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime).   If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...

While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.


Huh?  No matter how you kill yourself, you're dead!  I am not clear on what you are trying to get at here...
 
2013-05-08 11:03:06 AM  

CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.


Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition.  There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

However, there were 5,325 white homicide victims in 2005, and 8,522 black homicide victims.
Source: CDC WISQARS Mortality Reports


That means that there are 52.6 white homicides per 100,000 poor whites, and 202.2 black homicides per 100,000 poor blacks.
 
2013-05-08 11:03:36 AM  

legion_of_doo: Slaves2Darkness: Abortion, it is the root cause of all drops in crime statistics. Why if we aborted every baby whose parents don't make 50,000 a year each America would become a paradise on Earth.

I realize this is a troll... but abortion is not a good practice. i that life is so disposable degrades all of us. killing off the urban poor may be a nice taking point in your econ class, but it's vile and racist imo.

recent mass murderers were from families that did have access to mental health services. the 9/11 guys were also well educated. murder is not just about wealth, even if the murder of the wealthy is what we talk about.

/ now watch this drive


"Recent mass murders" are a dumb metric as they are rare and not a significant number of all murders. The same reasons that make abortion make sense in an econ class support it in a sociology class.
 
2013-05-08 11:03:39 AM  

dittybopper: sammyk: *sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.

So you're saying that NICS checks brought gun violence down to the levels of the 1950's, back when you could order a gun through the mail no questions asked and have it delivered to your doorstep?

Interesting.


Do you ever get tired of looking like a fool? I see you guys have a new talking point. that's the 3rd time today someone has tried to talk about mail order guns in the 50's or 60's.

1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.

2) You can mail order guns today so your point is retarded and meaningless.

http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_search.asp?deal er _id=957577
 
2013-05-08 11:04:14 AM  

Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?


To your credit, I don't think much of the recent legislation would have had any effect on suicide deaths by firearm, but who knows.  If it were up to me, I'd require a Mental Health pass/fail as part of the background check, HIPAA be damned.  If we want "crazies" to stop getting access to guns, this would go a long way to that effect.

But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.
 
2013-05-08 11:04:27 AM  

Dimensio: You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?


If you truly believe that the intent of the bill of rights is to limit the government's power over natural rights then I don't see how my opinion is inconsistent with that. It is just a slightly different restriction on government power based on the consideration of what the right to bear arms really means in the context of the second amendment,
 
2013-05-08 11:05:03 AM  

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: And how one chooses to respond to statistics like these is apparently a matter of interpretation. For some on the right, the argument seems to be, "But look at how much better things are than 20 years ago!" For the left, the argument is, "We still have far more gun deaths than any industrialized democracy on the planet, and with some sensible safety measures, we can build on the recent progress and save more lives."


It's not just right and left. I'm opposed to gun control proposed thus far because none of the rules proposed would actually have stopped the events that they'll alleged to be aimed at stopping.

If someone has a new idea that isn't just "ban scary sounding looking" I'm all ears.


If an argument for gun control rests on the premise that high capacity magazines & rapid fire tech make it too easy to kill, then outlaw all semi-automatic weapons: permit ownership only of firearms that require the owner to manually chamber the round after each shot. This would mean allowing only revolvers, shotguns & bolt-action rifles. This would preserve the right to keep & bear, while limiting destructive capacity.
 
2013-05-08 11:05:15 AM  

CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.

Because its not the race, its the economic condition. The fact that race correlates is the fault of history.


Wrong again.
Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity
LocationWhiteBlackHispanicOtherTotalUnited States25,865,70012,876,40017,134,7005,442,40061,319,200

Murder Offendersby Age, Sex, and Race, 2011

AgeTotalSex Race MaleFemaleUnknownWhiteBlackOtherUnknownTotal 14,5489,4851,1383,9254,7295,4862564,077

Twice as many whites live below the poverty line yet Bla men commit more murders.  There is more going here that just economics.
 
2013-05-08 11:05:37 AM  
Want the gun-crime rate to drop even more?

i557.photobucket.com

21 or older to enter.

What are you afraid of?
 
2013-05-08 11:05:44 AM  

Dimensio: GnomePaladin: HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?

This is where gun nuts always go wrong.  No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.

That banning the presence of pistol grips and collapsing stocks on popular and rarely criminally misused rifle models are claimed to be "common sense steps" causes many gun rights advocates to be averse to proposals of what are claimed to be "common sense steps".


How about stronger laws/more enforcement around background checks?  Registration/insurance?  The list of common sense stuff goes on and on, but if you want to talk about the silly stuff I guess this is probably the right place.
 
2013-05-08 11:06:02 AM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition.  There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

However, there were 5,325 white homicide victims in 2005, and 8,522 black homicide victims.
Source: CDC WISQARS Mortality Reports

That means that there are 52.6 white homicides per 100,000 poor whites, and 202.2 black homicides per 100,000 poor blacks.


So its your contention that the difference is the result of Melanin?
 
2013-05-08 11:06:33 AM  

mrshowrules: Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.


By all means, explain the difference and meanings of well regulated and well-regulated.  I expect citations.
 
2013-05-08 11:06:54 AM  
Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors:  mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

Unfortunately, a higher proportion of violent crime than ever before is being committed with guns.  That fact shows we have a problem with the gun culture in this country.
 
2013-05-08 11:06:59 AM  

sammyk: dittybopper: sammyk: *sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.

So you're saying that NICS checks brought gun violence down to the levels of the 1950's, back when you could order a gun through the mail no questions asked and have it delivered to your doorstep?

Interesting.

Do you ever get tired of looking like a fool? I see you guys have a new talking point. that's the 3rd time today someone has tried to talk about mail order guns in the 50's or 60's.

1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.


Are you saying that reported homicide rates of that decade are falsified?


2) You can mail order guns today so your point is retarded and meaningless.

http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_search.asp?deal er _id=957577


"Mail ordering" firearms today requires that the firearm be shipped to a federally licensed seller within the state of the buyer; the buyer must undergo a criminal background investigation to establish eligibility before the firearm may be transferred from the licensed seller. They are not "delivered to your doorstep".

"Mail ordering" firearms in the 1950s resulted in the firearm being shipped directly to the home of the buyer.

The two methods are different. Claiming that the ability to do the former is equivalent to doing the latter is dishonest.
 
2013-05-08 11:07:09 AM  

someonelse: GanjSmokr: someonelse: There are state laws banning alcohol sales to people with X number of DUI citations.

[citation needed]

I'm too lazy to link on iPad, but I think New Mexico just did it. And of course getting one's license suspended for DUIs is common.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/new-mexico-alcohol-sales-dwi-co nv icts.html

From what I saw, they're just trying to get it passed.  It's not law.

How do you enforce that law unless you ID EVERYONE who buys booze.  As it stands, those over 35 or so usually aren't carded.
 
Displayed 50 of 832 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report