Page 5 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

18 Jul 2015, 3:22 am

The problem is statistics like these really aren't so convincing. We all know that stupid people use guns in stupid ways. But nobody wants to think of themself as a stupid person.

If everyone uses a gun responsibly at all times and never makes any mistakes there are no problems. Guns really don't kill people. The gun advocates are correct on this point.

So in US we've got this freedom thing. Everyone is a genius and noone screws up ever.

So everyone can have a gun. Lol. And if guns were wiped out (magically) would the homicide rate increase or decrease. I speculate that it would decrease but it can't be proven. Correlation does not prove causation and if you look from country to country, region to region, there is not always a direct (or inirect) correlation that you would expect.

A lot of the problem really is in American's attitudes. I'm from America but I'm not a fan of some of values that are espoused as American. I think it is ironically American for me to be able to express this view. Freedom of speech. Lol.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Jul 2015, 5:04 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
So everyone can have a gun. Lol. And if guns were wiped out (magically) would the homicide rate increase or decrease. I speculate that it would decrease but it can't be proven. Correlation does not prove causation and if you look from country to country, region to region, there is not always a direct (or inirect) correlation that you would expect.


You can wipe them out magically, and I speculate any possible action probably won't make any differnce one way or the other, based on no being a consistent pattern across the globe.

There are big myths about the true nature of crime: Firstly the perception of crime, and the perception about the deterrents.

The true nature of crime is counter intuitive, becuase you can't view crime from a first person hypothetical and project from that.

If people just focus on guns as the solution or problem of crime they are missing the bigger picture. It is a secondary factor.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Jul 2015, 9:08 am

Gun violence might drop if you ban guns(duh) but the overall the violent crime rate usually stays the same or even increases. Guns were completely banned in Jamaica back in the 70s and they went door to door to confiscate them too, Jamaica before this time was a relatively peaceful place but 40 years later is one of the most violent dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest rates of murder. Most murders in the US are actually committed by people they know or in some way gang/drug related, that's where we need to focus our attention because that is where we can make the most difference as opposed to random psycho killers who will always exist.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jul 2015, 11:46 am

/\ Banning a thing doesn't make it go away it just makes it illegal, otherwise this country would be free of illicit drugs. We will NEVER be free of illicit drugs.

With all the taxpayer money spent (read wasted), lives ruined, killings, and prison space overfilled due to the "War on Drugs" just multiply that for a "War on Guns".


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jul 2015, 12:12 pm

Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?


Um.....you're actually trying to compare diabetes to gun shot wounds?
they're both preventable, what are you finding difficult to comprehend about this comparison?

Diabetes is usually preventable and sometimes even curable through diet and exercise alone. There is no quick and easy prevention for gunshot wounds. The fact that I have to explain that to you says a lot.

Most people with two braincells to rub together aren't going to drink the kool aid that is the product of this "study" :roll: or others of its kind. In reality (with at least two braincells fully engaged) it just doesn't add up.

I've personally met as many doctors (MD's) at shooting ranges and gun shops as anywhere else. Most MD's are bootstrap conservatives who got to where they are mostly by thier own hard work and perseverance, not from a government sugar-tit. Too many of them are just not going to buy into this BS and give it any credence.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

18 Jul 2015, 12:23 pm

Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?

Um.....you're actually trying to compare diabetes to gun shot wounds?
they're both preventable, what are you finding difficult to comprehend about this comparison?

Diabetes is usually preventable and sometimes even curable through diet and exercise alone. There is no quick and easy prevention for gunshot wounds. The fact that I have to explain that to you says a lot.

Most people with two braincells to rub together aren't going to drink the kool aid that is the product of this "study" :roll: or others of its kind. In reality (with at least two braincells fully engaged) it just doesn't add up.

I've personally met as many doctors (MD's) at shooting ranges and gun shops as anywhere else. Most MD's are bootstrap conservatives who got to where they are mostly by thier own hard work and perseverance, not from a government sugar-tit. Too many of them are just not going to buy into this BS and give it any credence.

Indeed. Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership ( http://www.drgo.us/ ) which, as luck would have it, includes among its top commentaries one such commentary "Can 'Gun Violence' Be Addressed as a Public Health Issue?" ( http://www.drgo.us/?p=1077 ) which asks "Is it really valid to address gunshot injury and death as matters for public health intervention? The short answer is that this is a smokescreen. The commission of gunshot injuries and deaths ('gun violence') cannot be fairly addressed as a 'public health issue', as that phrase has become used in its case."


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

18 Jul 2015, 12:57 pm

cathylynn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
sly279 wrote:
and the people who lobby for the cdc funding, get money from anti gun groups. so what. how about the cdc stays out of non health issues and focuses on stuff like Ebola and anthrax.

there is no non biased side in this debate, people who are not on any side(unbiased completely) don't give a s**t and don't debate gun control. the fact that you do shows you're on one side and its not the pro gun side.
woah, are you saying that being shot isn't a health issue? what's your reasoning for that claim?

The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?


so they should be able to regulate and limit food consumption to all Americans to prevent obesity? a far larger health issue hitting a Americans.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

18 Jul 2015, 1:37 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Indiscriminate weapons ( http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/indi ... ate-weapon ) include grenades, landmines, automatic firearms and, yes, nuclear devices. They are generally are prohibited from private ownership and use.


I believe the terms you were looking for are actually 'arms' and 'ordnance', as 'arms' is the word used in the Constitution, and has a concise definition that rules out the nuclear weapons red herring argument.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jul 2015, 2:08 pm

Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
See my post about "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" weapons.
there's no such post in this thread, perhaps you could copy and paste it from whereever you posted it(ctrl +c and ctrl +v respectively if you're using windows)

Indiscriminate weapons ( http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/indi ... ate-weapon ) include grenades, landmines, automatic firearms and, yes, nuclear devices. They are generally are prohibited from private ownership and use. Discriminate weapons include manual-operation and semiautomatic light firearms which use .50-cal. or smaller ammunition. They are allowed in most nations including the United States for private ownership and use.

Also, the idea that firearms are restricted if they are used by law-enforcment or military personnel isn't true in the United States. Under the Indiscriminate/Discriminate scheme, U.S. citizens may own and use the very same discriminate firearms that are routinely used by personnel. In many jurisdictions, citizens might actually own and use superior firearms than a jurisdiction's personnel can afford.
interesting, though I wonder where on the scale a semi-auto weapon that could be converted to full auto would fall.

How often does this actually happen and when it does happen how often does it result in said converted weapons being used in a crime?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Jul 2015, 2:49 pm

Dox47 wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Indiscriminate weapons ( http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/indi ... ate-weapon ) include grenades, landmines, automatic firearms and, yes, nuclear devices. They are generally are prohibited from private ownership and use.


I believe the terms you were looking for are actually 'arms' and 'ordnance', as 'arms' is the word used in the Constitution, and has a concise definition that rules out the nuclear weapons red herring argument.


I as I said my point was satirical I'm not actually serious. However the definition of arms is obviously important as far as the constitution is concerned.

Also under the dictionary definition ordinance are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.

The distinction you make between ordinance and arms, is more modern than than the constitution so is worthy of a modern consideration.

The definition of indiscriminate is important as far as the constitution is concerned. Early musket are in fact mini cannons, that is the evolution of firearms.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Jul 2015, 3:09 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Gun violence might drop if you ban guns(duh) but the overall the violent crime rate usually stays the same or even increases. Guns were completely banned in Jamaica back in the 70s and they went door to door to confiscate them too, Jamaica before this time was a relatively peaceful place but 40 years later is one of the most violent dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest rates of murder. Most murders in the US are actually committed by people they know or in some way gang/drug related, that's where we need to focus our attention because that is where we can make the most difference as opposed to random psycho killers who will always exist.


Having lived in Jamaica, most of the serious violence has a connection to the politicians. They don't called them "Don Constituencies" for nothing. There is a chain of corruption between the politicians and the dons, and certian area are defacto X party as they are expected to vote for that side under pain of death.

Btw in the before this happened Jamaica wasn't all that peaceful. Micheal Manley didn't help gun violence, as he was very decisive politician and wrapped up in it anyway. I fact you could say Micheal Manley cause a lot of the problem that has plagued Jamaica since. They could never enforce these laws anyway, they were cynical measure anyway.

Not that i totally disagree with you either.

Eddie Seaga was just as bad Manley.

1989 was the most violent election.

Thing have improved a bit in the 90s an 00s. They brought in anti-fraud measures for elections, reduced election violence. In fact when I did a project on this when I was there they took me round, they had ID photo card, finger print scanners, etc. However ti was not all ready for that election. But certainly more sophisticated the UK elections, or many countries.

Also Carter's organization supervised the election. JLP challenged the result (as expected), and it was looked into.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Jul 2015, 3:25 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Gun violence might drop if you ban guns(duh) but the overall the violent crime rate usually stays the same or even increases. Guns were completely banned in Jamaica back in the 70s and they went door to door to confiscate them too, Jamaica before this time was a relatively peaceful place but 40 years later is one of the most violent dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest rates of murder. Most murders in the US are actually committed by people they know or in some way gang/drug related, that's where we need to focus our attention because that is where we can make the most difference as opposed to random psycho killers who will always exist.


Having lived in Jamaica, most of the serious violence has a connection to the politicians. They don't called them "Don Constituencies" for nothing. There is a chain of corruption between the politicians and the dons, and certian area are defacto X party as they are expected to vote for that side under pain of death.

Btw in the before this happened Jamaica wasn't all that peaceful. Micheal Manley didn't help gun violence, as he was very decisive politician and wrapped up in it anyway. I fact you could say Micheal Manley cause a lot of the problem that has plagued Jamaica since. They could never enforce these laws anyway, they were cynical measure anyway.

Not that i totally disagree with you either.

Eddie Seaga was just as bad Manley.

1989 was the most violent election.

Thing have improved a bit in the 90s an 00s. They brought in anti-fraud measures for elections, reduced election violence. In fact when I did a project on this when I was there they took me round, they had ID photo card, finger print scanners, etc. However ti was not all ready for that election. But certainly more sophisticated the UK elections, or many countries.

Also Carter's organization supervised the election. JLP challenged the result (as expected), and it was looked into.

Would you agree that the gun ban disarmed primarily law-abiding citizens and contributed to the escalation of violence by leaving the general population at the mercy of the government/opposition/criminal gangs with no way to defend themselves? I don't think anybody could say gun control worked in Jamaica.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Jul 2015, 3:44 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Would you agree that the gun ban disarmed primarily law-abiding citizens and contributed to the escalation of violence by leaving the general population at the mercy of the government/opposition/criminal gangs with no way to defend themselves? I don't think anybody could say gun control worked in Jamaica.


It wasn't really implemented properly, also they types of people that were penalised were farmers. Gun ownership wasn't as high you think, amounts ordinary folks.

The curious thing about Jamaica is you can have very violent areas, but not far a way a sleepy middle class area with much less violence. South Africa is a different story

Manley increased racial division; he created tension between blacks, Chinese, Indian, and White Jamaicans. Many people left the country. The irony is that Castro was his idol, didn't subscribe to his racial division.

Manley is also famous to lying to the Rastafarian to win votes. Haile Selassie visited Jamaica in 1966 he was bemused by Rastafarianism treating him as the Messiah but never actually challenge them. They welcomed him when he landed, with much jubilation. He gave them gold medallions. He gave a wooden staff to Norman Manley.

Later when Micheal was running for election and having acquired the staff, he declared it the "staff of Zion" in order to appeal to the Rastafarian vote.



Last edited by 0_equals_true on 18 Jul 2015, 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Jul 2015, 3:57 pm

I played snooker with a likely murderer. When I was there the Venezuelan Ambassador was shot dead with his own registered shotgun. All the evidence was pointing to the son having done it. There was some rumor of domestic violence/issue being the motive (possibly invovling sister/mother), btw we will never relay know as he was whisked out of the country under diplomatic immunity. I don't know if justice was ever served.

Months before this happened I met up with this boy, he came to my house and we payed snooker. He was a pleasant enough boy, quiet but affable.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything by this btw, just a tragedy.

The most unpleasant part of the whole affair was that many of the South American expat tried to imply it was perpetrated by some Jamaican Yardie, despite there being zero evidence of that or even a break in.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,281
Location: northeast US

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

24 Jul 2015, 9:21 pm

WOW!! !!
They used bar charts so you just KNOW it's gotta be the truth.....
:roll: :roll:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley