Two Views of Gun Control…
… or, do as I say, not as I do, Hollywood division:
Okay, it’s easy to say that they’re just actors. Jamie Foxx is not really killing all those white people in Tarantino’s Django Unchained — via the magic of movie-making, he’s just pretending to kill them. And Jennifer Garner isn’t really shooting those Arabs in The Kingdom, she’s just playing a role. And Jeremy Renner — a splendid action hero, even if the last Bourne installment was a plotless dud — would never in a million years think of gunning down Boston cops while robbing Fenway Park (as he did in The Town), unless his pal Ben Affleck (on his way to becoming a great director) asked him to for his art.
And good for them for doing so.
But with President Obama promising to put “gun control” in the legislative crosshairs in 2013, it’s instructive to watch various actors both miming heroism and then denouncing the very tools with which they perform those heroic acts. For years, Hollywood has been forced to assert that films have no influence on the larger culture — unless, of course, it’s advancing various pet lefty causes under the “tolerance” rubric — and that therefore they cannot “inspire” various psychotic punks to acts of horrific violence.
And I agree. As John Milton writes in the Areopagitica:
TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE; not only meats and drinks, but all kind of knowledge whether of good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled. For books are as meats and viands are; some of good, some of evil substance; and yet God, in that unapocryphal vision, said without exception, RISE, PETER, KILL AND EAT, leaving the choice to each man’s discretion. Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomach differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evil. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate…
Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil.
In other words, to a soul predisposed to evil, everything can be an occasion of sin. To the feeble-minded losers who fancy themselves Keanu Reeves in The Matrix, everything looks like a black trench coat:
You talkin’ to me?
Since religion, presumabley Judeo-Christianity was injected in to the subject matter, could be entertain the possiblity of evil being changed to sin?
“In other words, to a soul predisposed to evil…”
All mankind is born into and predisposed to sin. Each it seems, are quick to be witness to others sins and judge them so much worst than their own, if they even admit to their sins.
Otherwise, we live in times when guns have evolved into the psychic realm of fancy technological toys. Toys used by the entertainment idustries to desensitize todays younger generations of human life. Killing humans today is only and exciting extension of the movies they see and the video games the play hours on end, days on end and weeks on end. They’re even rewarded with notority for their scoring for their efficiency at killing lots of people. Albeit, they are annimated objects, they lose touch with that reality.
A very sick society of younger generations today and most on this site advocate the solution is more guns in the hands of these generations. They fail to understand that most everybody is considered without mental defect or criminal — until they aren’t. And ‘aren’t’ is becoming far to consistant today.
‘Zeke’, based on your current and previous posts, you are an evil person. You seem to love to play with language in order to distort any argument. For any patriots, please look up the word ‘Gaslighting’ on your favorite search engine. Wikipedia has a decent description of this concept. Gaslighting is “Zeke’s” specialty.
Ceteris Paribus please get some rest as PJM would miss you in the event of a needlessly brought on stroke or heart attack — seriously!
Gotcha!
I can’t believe I lived in LA for years and never heard of gas lighting. That explains so much of how f’ed up that city is.
While it would certainly be a step in the right direction to take away all guns, this alone will not end violence. You stumbled upon a very important point with respect to video games.
Violent video games are a microcosm for the brutality of capitalism. Under capitalism, human life counts for nothing and money counts for everything. Killing for points trains children to crush the lives of others in order to enrich themselves, which is what you must do to survive under capitalism.
I think you have the direction of causality in reverse. The first-person shooter games reflect life under capitalism. Until a compassionate society is established, such games will be popular precisely because they are less fantasy than you might think.
And no one was ever killed under communism?
Right you are vb.
78 million killed by Mao in 11 years
20 million killed by Stalin in 7 years
1.7 million killed by Pol Pot in 4 years
Herding a bunch of people onto barges and then sinking them in the middle of a river in freezing wintertime isn’t “gun-violence” though.
cf. “Gulag Archipelago”, Aleks. Solzhenitsin
I’m certainly not an advocate of taking away all guns from the citizens. However, the Second Amendment does NOT address the types and use(s) of guns owned by the citizenry beyond that of malitia’s issue which, is pretty much settled law between the states and the federal government these days.
“I’m certainly not an advocate of taking away all free speech from the citizens. However, the First Amendment does NOT address the types and use(s) of media or devices owned by the citizenry to communicate”
There I put that in some context you might understand. Your hoplophobia blinds you to the same conceptualization of the Second.
Lets make a deal Fantom! I don’t molest your quotes and you don’t molest my quotes! The irrational logic of far to many radicals is to read into and otherwise define a statement as having words or meaning that is NOT present, for their own self serving motives.
An interesting case in point presented by Michael below: “You will see that they meant the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed were to have the same weapons as the military.” The only prevailing terms of the Second Ammendment are those words contained in the Second Amendment. NO, I will NOT see in the Second Amendment, any such words or inferences as “…to have the same weapons as the military.” No body of sound mind has ever tried to bring this kind of Second Amendment interpretation before the Supreme Court. As such, nobody brought before the Supreme Court, any challenge to the Clinton era assault weapon ban. As a side note, the Supreme Court doesn’t have to entertain every ambulance chasers frivolous cases as does the lower states district and appellate courts. No constitutional merit – go away! Likewise, the Court cannot independently manufacture a case of facts to enterain some rulling, it must be a case brought to them.
There good cause why the pro-gun people consistanly create the diversion of ‘taking our guns away’ vs ‘regulating’ gun ownership. Taking everybody’s guns away is the only instance their cause has legal and constitutional merit.
” Zeke
Lets make a deal Fantom! I don’t molest your quotes and you don’t molest my quotes!
”
No deal.
It is not irrational to equate your irrational hoplophopic lunacy on the Second Amendment with a comparable application to the First. The same standard should apply too both Rights.
Do you not agree?
BTW, Zeke. I did not attribute my posting to you. FTFY posting is juvenile(albeit sometimes effective
). I merely reflected your reasoning on the Second into the First.
And you pissed yourself.
‘Nough said.
The Founders who wrote the 10 Amendments also wrote about them. Read what they have to say. You will see that they meant the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed were to have the same weapons as the military.
The right to self defence and hunting were not the point of the 2nd Amendment but to defend against a tyranical government.
Weapons in the hands of the people are needed now more than at any time in the history of the United States.
Good points.
Another thing to consider is that we defeated the most advanced and effective military at the time.. the British Army, in no small part because we(civilians) were armed with the most advanced weaponry of the day..rifles. The Brits had muskets.
@Fantom -
Some militia and “partisan” units would have been armed with rifles of private provenance, but the standard infantry weapons of both sides were muskets because they can be loaded and fired much more rapidly than the rifles of the day and thus were better suited to the tactics and maneuvers then in use.
Until the minie “ball” came along in the 1840s the rifle was too slow to load and too susceptible to fouling for general mass infantry use. A skilled rifleman firing from cover could wreak havoc, but if spotted had little ability to defend himself. The British truly hated the partisan units such as Francis Marion’s group upon which the movie “Patriot” is loosely based. These units used the accuracy of their rifles to specifically target British officers and NCOs.
Even the minie had to be small relative to the actual bore to ram quickly and 10-20 rounds depending on powder quality was about the limit before the bore was too fouled to load at all and the weapon had to be cleaned. Troops would use water from their canteen to swab the barrel and if they ran out of water urinate down the barrel. Nothing like getting hit by a round that has been lubed with rancid animal fat, fire through a barrel cleaned with urine, and which has penetrated several layers of dirty, sweaty clothing. No wonder so many died from gangrene from wounds that wouldn’t otherwise be life-threatening.
If you get modern minies, you really can’t load and fire realistically as it would have been done in the US Civil War. The modern minies are very tight and very hard, which gives very good power and accuracy for target shooting or hunting, but they are almost impossible to set without a tool and very difficult to ram. It isn’t an issue for reenactors because obviously they aren’t loading anything but powder and aren’t even allowed to bring a ramrod on the field, but the people who do exhibition drill and shooting have to make their own minies that are softer and smaller so they can be loaded more quickly.
Art, there was no standing army of the day in the Americas circa 1776. Certainly some units , probably later when the French supplied some arms, would have been outfitted with musket. Maybe a really thin and poor man would have one. Any American of note or desire to provide game for the table would have had one.
A musket was re-loadable faster… maybe not such a good point. A rifled barrel may require a bit more force, or not, depending on the patch. I have reloaded both and from a tactical point … it does not matter.
The tighter the the patch, the better the seal … increased velocity and accuracy in a rifle is the result. However, drop a lead ball in both and they fall home if sized right. You can increase rate of fire in rifles to that of muskets with the resultant loss of accuracy.
Point being, the citizen soldier wanted to eat more than be a cog in a massed fire unit. He had a rifle.
That rifle killed at ranges two to three times the range of muskets. It killed British Generals with one shot. It changed the battlefield.
Citizens, not governments owned it.
You seem to not understand the true nature of the situation. There is no question that alcohol prohibition was constitutional because they changed the thing. The result was an explosion in organized crime, violence, lawlessness by ordinary people and political corruption. The so called war on drugs has rather dubious constitutional underpinnings and has produced the exact same result. What do you think will happen under DiFi the Commie Stooge’s gun ban? My assessment is the guns will not be taken without a gunfight and the gooberment will likely lose said gunfight. Only three percent of the colonists took up arms against the crown over this very issue. If one percent of gun owners mean “…from my dead hand…” then that alone is over 1,000,000 armed resisters. And since joining a militia, let alone leading one, gets you an invitation to your very own production of “Death by Drone”, most of those will be self-directed one and two-man kill teams, teams that have their own target lists and priorities.
Oh and in this contest, the cheerleaders are in play.
File under: Consent of the Governed
Perfectly stated. Consent of the governed indeed.
Actually, they did explicitly define the type of weapons:
Ignorance of the law is no defense. You are free to dislike or lament it until you are blue in the face, but ‘Arms’, when the constitution was written, explicitly meant the above.
Actually, your ‘John Trusler’ carries zero authority in defining anything of our constitution. “…when the constitution was written, explicitly meant the above.”
The founders and framers were pretty ‘smart’ gentlemen. They, to use one of your terms, ‘explicitly’ wrote what they meant and what they didn’t write was left to the congress or to the states depending on the jurisdiction. Furthermore, the framers allowed for the constitution to be amended as a living document. The First and Second Amendments are the only two with specific language by the framers that do not allow that language and right to be amended.
Now, back on point of gun control. Malitia’s as spoken to in the Second Amendment, has well been defined and settled between the states and the federal government. As a matter of settled law, only a few states have enacted laws and regulations for a citizen states malitia outside the parameters of the national/states guards. Note: Enacted laws and regulations!
But back on point. The Second Amendment only address malitia’s in addition too private citizen gun ownership. Militia’s be settled, that leaves the matter citizen gun ownership. The Amendment only grants ownership and does NOT include any compelling language regarding kinds and uses of such gun ownership. As such, regulatory law by the federal government can be made in the areas of type and use(s) and even the ownership and has been done for a long time. Case in point keeping to current times. Nobody found any constitutional grounds for which to motivate them to challenge the Clinton era ban on assault weapons or even it definition. Another point. Try buying a current manufactured machinegun today and see what you’re told. Try buying a ‘gatlin-style’ 30m or 50cal, etc.
The ONLY reasons there is not more regulation today is that the conscience of the people has not been so inflamed by the abuses of gun ownership to a point that the government must act to further regulate…period!
Completely and utterly wrong. The very reason that the Founders defined the right to bear arms in terms of its function rather than in terms of a definition is because the right being guaranteed is the right to resist tyranny–not the right to own a particular type of handgun. When the constitution was written, that implied access to muskets. Now? Well……You may not like the implication, but that’s the way it is.
It is ambiguous but probably not in the way you would like to think. It is quite clear from the wording of the Constitution itself to the interpretive writings of contemporary Founders that the intent is to ensure that “the People” are able to collectively resist government tyranny. In 1783 that implied only access to muskets and that was all that was required to enable “the People” to collectively resist a foreign invasion or tyrannical oppressor. Now? Hmm…….
J. Fredrickson – One has to be careful to acknowledge their ‘conditioned’ logic when interpreting law and especially, when it is the constitution and its amendments. This is a problem those who sit in the higher courts of appeals has to struggle to overcome.
“…reason that the Founders defined the right to bear arms in terms of its function rather than in terms of a definition is because the right being guaranteed is the right to resist tyranny…”
That is a conclusion arrived at through conditioned logic. It is flawed. The constitution grants to the states, the precept of malitia’s – states malitia’s and the grant to citizen gun ownership. Since that time, the states “organized malitia’s” have been federalized. Then comes the second part of the Second Amendment – the presumed “right” of ALL citizens to own guns. In this part and the malitia’s part, of course, we find that the framers did indeed setforth regulating gun ownership – age, physical, mental health and criminal conviction.
Of course what comes next is what so many people seemingly struggle with. That is whats NOT said in the language of the constitution. This is where people rush to the supporting founding documents such as the Federalist Papers, cherry picking whatever author may have addressed an issue and further cherry picking snipets in an attempt to justify some point of ones personal logic. Of course the founders and framers all had differing opinions of which some were very strong. On occasion, the high courts will refer to such documents seeking some ‘consensus’ of intent. Otherwise the high courts MUST rely on the language of the constitution which was arrived at through debate and compromise – consensus of the majority.
So, what is NOT in the Second Amendment?
1. Who defines and declares a government to be tryannical? (A discussion unto itself)
2. Who leads the charge to overthrow such declared tyrannical government?
3. Types of weapons unorganized citizens may own.
4. Uses of weapons owned by the unorgained citizenry.
UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I – CRIMES CHAPTER 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
“Crimes against the government are infamous crimes (without fame or good report), and under common law, people committing such crimes have not even have the right to defend themselves at trial (a “firing squad” offense). The Constitution of the United States (Article 3, Section 3) does not specifically rule out or rule in the right to representation, but it does talk about treason (and attempting to overthrow the government) as a breach of allegiance and the most aggravated, serious felony that one could commit. Terrorism against the United States is another such offense. The purpose of the criminal law in this area is to protect the innocent and preserve the political process of — representative democracy and free elections.”
I’m wondering if the fact we have representatives elected by the people in states districts across the land, if that defines a representative democracy? I’m wondering if people are free to register and go to their district polling place to cast votes for the representatives of their choice, somehow defines free elections? Of course, radical conditioned logic will always find an argument in these areas I supose.
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 initial phrase as well as the supreme court decision in U.S vs. Miller determine the weapons protected by the 2nd amendment to be those that a militia member, an infantry soldier, would use . In Miller the court held that sawed of shotguns were not a military weapon and consequently were not protected.
Throbbin Yobbin wrote:
“While it would certainly be a step in the right direction to take away all guns, this alone will not end violence. You stumbled upon a very important point with respect to video games.
Violent video games are a microcosm for the brutality of capitalism. Under capitalism, human life counts for nothing and money counts for everything. Killing for points trains children to crush the lives of others in order to enrich themselves, which is what you must do to survive under capitalism.
I think you have the direction of causality in reverse. The first-person shooter games reflect life under capitalism. Until a compassionate society is established, such games will be popular precisely because they are less fantasy than you might think.”
TY, if you are not yet 20 years old, we will chuckle and excuse you for this drivel. Otherwise, grow up.
Throbbin spews Marxist nonsense and imagines himself some great intellect for parroting the ideology of the only modern government system that has managed to kill more people than the Nazis.
Hey Throbbin Yobbin,
Please enlighten us on these societies where socialism is leading to better life and more freedom for its citizens……….I am waiting……..No you can’t name one.
Which makes you an intellectual lightweight. You understand that don’t you? Us conservatives understand that liberalism is a disease and it can not survive in a mind of curiosity and critical thinking. I will help you out here. You can search the entire human history and you will not find a society that offers better cost of goods to the consumer, more freedom (although shrinking daily unfortunately), and a better quality of life except and when you have capitalism.. Get it? Get it through your thick head.
The competitive nature of an open economic system is what leads to the lowest price and best quality of a good or service. And the super-natural will of someone who wants to–for their own self-interest I might add–in order to be rewarded handsomely, invent something or build a better mousetrap deserves to be rewarded for their success and thus their contribution to society whether it be medicine, or consumer goods.
Have you no brain? I thought liberals were always complaining about government control and taking away our freedoms and nowadays all you want is more and more government control of our lives. Frankly, you all make me sick. Good day!
Study you US History damn it, and world history. Go to Hillsdale College online coarse and take the free constitution course. Educate yourselves before it is too late. I truly fear for this generation.
Socialism has provided caring and compassionate health care for most of the world’s peoples while all but the 1% are simply left to die with no succor at all in the United States. Socialism has provided safe streets through caring social programs that make sure the poor do not go hungry and hence will not need to steal.
Socialism has also limited the ownership of firearms since protection from one’s fellow citizens is unnecessary as long as their children have enough to eat. This is why mass murders do not exist outside the “free” USA.
Anders Behring Breivik. Next, troll.
Except, that it hasn’t, and we don’t.
Other than being 180 degrees removed from reality, nice post!
“While it would certainly be a step in the right direction to take away all guns” – asinine nonsense.
Assume this is satire.
I think your understanding of capitalism is as poor your understanding of human beings. Since the two are intimately related this is hardly surprising. Here are a few clues about capitalism:
1) a free/ market is required to set a monetary price upon those items people wish to exchange.
2) a free exchange benefits both parties.
3) money greatly increases the number of possible mutually beneficial exchanges over barter (moneyless exchange) thus enriching many lives.
4) Many things have no monetary price (life and love for example (these may be given but they are not exchanged), consequently their supply remains limited.
ZEEK;
You are wasting your superior wisdom here; Go write a book.
I am sir! It will have a cast of characters including the likes of yourself among several others. Thinking about casting you as cyberweezer or cybersneezer. Grand daughter thought cyberweenie appropriate but not to worry I’ve counseled her and she’s confessed her sin and repented.
Thanks for illustrating, more precisely, that you will write about yet another subject that you know absolutely nothing about.
Zeke reafirms the old saw that you can lead a liberal to the truth, but you cannot make ‘Em think.
Now geezer! Everybody on sites like this, spend hours, days, weeks and months on end painting a portrait of themselves. – intellectually, emotionally and soforth. Its no secret that the pricipals of this site stimulate and manipulate their audience to gleen nuggets of wisdom for their current or future book project. Kinda like crafting a particular product to sell to your audience – $$$$! I’m certain there are others not affilated with the site that come here often to gleen the ‘fruit’ from its following.
Take time out to enjoy ‘your’ life and your family geezer.
Zeke;
Isn’t it nice to be a legend in your own mind?
Oh geezer, you forget profitable! Look at the endless numbers of books at Barnes& Noble, Books Azillion, Amazon, on this site, etc. All written by legends in their own minds. Look at the numbers of responders on sites such as this, who by golly, have all the absolutes worked out in the minds and everybody elses opinions are flat out wrong – legends in their own minds. Thats why, when challenged, they come unglued in both lobes of their brains — the very thought that somebody would or could challenge their intellectual legend status.
Hope you have a great year and stress doesn’t bring some unwanted suprise upon your health and wellbeing.
Zeke;
You sound like a frustrated priest, or maybe a preacher that had to resign.
If you think you can determine my lifestyle by how I write, you are indeed a fool.
And just because there are that many books on the shelves does not equate with the authors making money; The PUBLISHER is the one who has already got paid.
Zeke;
You sound like a frustrated priest, or maybe a preacher that had to resign.
If you think you can determine my lifestyle by how I write, you are indeed a fool.
And just because there are that many books on the shelves does not equate with the authors making money; The PUBLISHER is the one who has already got paid.
(Sorry if this gets posted twice; Internet has a hangover).
Larry Correia has decisively refuted every argument of the gun controllers.
Why not start by banning all guns and other weapons from movies and video games? That would not offend the Second Amendment, would not disarm our law-abiding citizenry and would certainly make us a “less violent society,” as we would be required to pursue non-lethal forms of entertainment. Let’s see how the self-rightous celebrities advocating gun control warm to this suggestion.
Propose it in Congress and let them scream to defend it.
Interesting idea! It would really clarify whose money was in service of their mouths …
Bob, an interesting idea, but that would presuppose that the left really cares about the kiddies and other innocents. Banning excessively violent content (glorifying it too) would be a viable place to start, but they have no interest in protecting the kiddies. They care about controlling the debate and the outcome. And their goal is to tell the ‘bitter clingers’ what to do, along with the rest of the ‘riff raff’.
And Hollywood leftists not only live in their own (mental)fantasy land, but they also are attached at the hip to a radical, revolutionary political machine – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/27/obamas-america-entering-the-parallel-universe-of-radical-politics-gone-haywire-a-short-path-to-dictatorship-addendum-to-gunning-for-tea-party-activists-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
What can go wrong by listening to them? Everything!
Bob — An idea for sure BUT —- its violates the First Amendment!
With any freedoms comes great responsibilities which the overwhelming majority of todays generations fail.
Many years ago, sitting in a corner petrified, among some of the countrys top military brass, I remember a comment made by an admiral I shall not identify. Fondling with his pipe, looking over his glasses in a stern but obviously concerned manner he said this: “My greatest concern, is that we’re trying to defend the very things that one day, will destroy us from within.” Shock and silence abound the room for what seemd like an hour. Finally, a MC Colonel spoke up softly saying, “Lets pray we don’t ever fail our own responsibilities and that we be the standard bearers for all to witness.” God bless them, each and every one, who have been spared witnessing todays generations destroying this nation from within.
Today, it is ever so popular to blame a particular political party or this individual or another, one group or another, when in fact, it is the people themselves – individuals, from the bottom up, destroying the nation through their own irresponsibility of the freedoms the constitution granted to all citizens.
“Bob — An idea for sure BUT —- its violates the First Amendment!”
Yet you seem all the ready to violate the Second.
As for the rest.. the fish rots from the head down. And we have one rotten head of State these days.
Geez, you must be known about town and at home as an antagonistic seeking to gain attention. I wouldn’t mind, if you actually had any revelvant and legitimate information to add to a discussion that doesn’t represent your racism.
“Yet you seem all the ready to violate the Second.”
Either you can’t read and comprehend or you intentionally misrepresent what I write. Kindly, explain in some detail how I wish to ‘violate’ the Second Amendment. Betting I know exactly what you will write to misrepsent the facts.
You are projecting again Zeke.
As for your demand for a “detailed.. yada yada”. I am consumed with such hearty guffaws at that childish demand to prove what your posting proves day in and out. That in addition to rolling to and fro upon the floor, my posterior seems to have detached itself.
But not the Bob above!
If you don’t support Amendments 1, 3-10, there no reason to get excited about the 2nd. Has anyone seen the 1st Amendment lately or is it still in jail after offending some peaceful mooslims.
Throbbin Yobbin, you must have watched one too many “Captain Planet and the Planeteers” episodes. That was a CARTOON series, not a series of documentaries with any basis in truth, “Killing people to enrich themselves” happens under the confiscatory principles of Communism,Nazism and Islam. In the Koran,Mohammed taught that the world and everything in is is given by Allah to the Moslems,and that it is only their right to kill people and take their property,if they can do it.In practice,Communism does almost the same thing, only the thugocracy enriches itself from the stolen property and assets of the “evil capitalists”, while everyone else is poor,living in dreadful public but,hey, rent-free housing.Pretty much the story (except that there is no free concrete housing) in ALL Islamic countries these days. And the wars America has fought in in the past 60 years or so has been to at least contain the Communists or militant Moslems. And it is the “evil capitalist” America that treated its POWS humanely and sent them home alive,more than you can say for either the Commies OR the Islamists. So don’t tell ME “human life counts for nothing” under capitalism. That is wrong. It is counted for LESS than nothing under OTHER economic systems.
Cindobindo – I think you are missing TY’s strategy:
1) Hijack thread with polemic on capitalism
2) Link “evil capitalism” with authors topic; identify capitalism as cause/effect of all of mankinds suffering
3) Conclude that if we can only rid ourselves of this evil capitalism, we can continue our march to Utopia.
Arguing with a wall only make your throat horse and makes the wall look smart…
Zeke said “Otherwise, we live in times when guns have evolved into the psychic realm of fancy technological toys. Toys used by the entertainment idustries to desensitize todays younger generations of human life. Killing humans today is only and exciting extension of the movies they see and the video games the play hours on end, days on end and weeks on end. They’re even rewarded with notority for their scoring for their efficiency at killing lots of people. Albeit, they are annimated objects, they lose touch with that reality.”
Then the proper place to put this blame is on the society that allows movies like “Natural Born Killers” to flourish and be promoted in a way that glorifies violence. Combined with the fact that doctors seem to prescribe psychotropic drugs for everything from mild depression (prozac, luvox, Effenex) to highly active boys in school (ritalin), and kids with high levels of acne (Accutane) when these drugs have proven negative side effects is disastrous. The side effects include Suicidal and Homicidal thoughts. Why on earth would anyone prescribe these drugs to anyone who is depressed and not expect them to hurt themselves or others around them?
These drugs should be heavily restricted and only prescribed to people who have been hospitalized so they can be monitored and their access to media can be limited. Eric Harris of the Colombine shootings was on Luvox and obessively watched the movie Natural Born Killers.
We no longer have to wonder what the effect of the combination of Psychotropic drugs and violent movies will have on young kids.
I think the pharmaceutical quackery is changing our world more than we realize. While most people taking those drugs don’t shoot people, what DO they do in their lives that they wouldn’t have otherwise done? What mistakes and small incidents of madness are they perpetrating? If a kid who feels left out and idolizes a killer takes those drugs and then shoots up his school, is there a banker or lawyer taking those drugs who is also working with less of a conscience than a banker or lawyer usually has?
That is an interesting question. I have no idea what the answer is but would be interested in any related books or research.
A somewhat related question of mine is why there seems to be no information as to what sort of psychiatric treatment Lanza received. It is hard to accept that the mother was in the process of having him committed without his having been under treatment. The family could certainly afford such treatment.If he had been under treatment then he would almost certainly have been exposed to SSRI medications. And that would go a long way towards explaining (to me at least) the cause of his murders and suicide.
I watched an ultra-violent movie last week, in which people were shot with automatic weapons, blown up, killed in at least two plane crashes, and the hero died at the end. It’s a movie which, I guarantee you, would not be made in Hollywood today.
But it was made there, in 1956;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_All_Boats
The violence was simply an accurate, if fictionalized, depiction of the “island-hopping” campaign in the Pacific in World War Two, seen from the point of view of the officers and men of a U.S. Navy assault transport. The automatic weapons were 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns, and the air crashes were mostly Japanese kamikazes at Okinawa. An uncle of mine was there in real life in 1945, and stated that the only thing that frightened him more than that was the December 1944 typhoon that hit TF 38 in the Philippine Sea, which he was also present for;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Cobra_%281944%29
He once told me that Away All Boats “got it right”. Especially the results of a kamikaze hit.
The reason a movie like Away All Boats would not be made today is that far from glorifying violence, it shows it in all its gruesome reality. Also, it definitely states that the violence was necessary, to accomplish a specific purpose; driving the Japanese military forces off the islands they had seized by force, and in the end forcing Japan to surrender.
The film requires the audience to assume the United States was “in the right”, and that isn’t a popular opinion in Hollywood- or Washington- these days. This is another reason no Hollywood studio would touch it today.
The point is that violence, in films or otherwise, is only gratuitous if the point is to show the violence as the objective of the story. This is a point that modern Hollywood types are incapable of grasping, or so it would seem.
Not everything in history can be properly portrayed this way. Custer’s Last Stand (Little Big Horn Creek, 1876) is properly portrayed as what happens when an overconfident, over-ambitious, under-skilled officer commanding (Custer, G. A., Lt. Col) decides that he’s smarter than his (more experienced) senior (Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry). (The correct U.S. Army terminology for this today is a “Charlie Fox”- of the lethal variety.) But a movie based on the Battle of the Little Big Horn would be extremely violent; exactly none of it “gratuitous”.
Even “fictionalized” violence can be reasonable, in certain contexts. Dirty Harry (1971) was based on the real-life “Zodiac” murders in San Francisco, as was the much later film Zodiac (2007). The difference is that in Dirty Harry, “Scorpio” (the “Zodiac” stand-in) in the end is caught (actually shot dead). In Zodiac, his true identity is only discovered after his death from natural causes, two decades later, which is what actually happened.
Dirty Harry was wish-fulfillment for a lot of San Franciscans. Zodiac showed that sometimes, the bad guys win. Both are worthwhile films, just in different ways.
(To civil libertarians, Yes, Callahan broke or at least bent the law and several Amendments in his pursuit of “Scorpio”. And you may notice, blew his case out of the water in doing so. In that respect, the system worked properly. However, as it is established that “Scorpio” is an escaped mental patient, the reason he was on the street to begin with is that the “system” failed, as well. And continued failing right up to the point where Scorpio was shot dead by Callahan. Moral; If the system consistently fails at its avowed purpose, examine the premises on which it is based.)
All film violence is not created equal. As in everything else, context is what matters.
BTW, I have seen all three Matrix movies, on home video. And I can understand why they were so violent.
The filmmakers had to do something to keep the audience from noticing the holes in the plot that were big enough to drive my uncle’s ship through.
(He was a radio operator on a battleship.)
clear ether
eon
“Here in L.A., those most vociferously against firearms tend to be the same folks with the “Armed Response” signs in front of their houses”
Maybe they’d like the US to be a place where that was unnecessary. Where the nutjobs who obsess about them and stalk them and want to force themselves into their lives or randomly decide that if they can’t have them nobody can … couldn’t just walk into a gun show and buy a semi-automatic weapon with no kind of background check.
“Those who praise public charity as a “moral” duty indulge in very little private charity themselves”
Prove it. If it’s private, then how do you know?
The problem with blaming films (or video games) for the US’ gun problem is that those same films and video games are available in countries with much lower violent crime rates (which is most developed countries, as it happens).
Those countries also have people with mental health problems (and overstretched mental-health services), children from broken homes, very rich and out of touch entertainers (australia has its fair share), drug abuse, and all the other things that the NRA wants to blame for the conspicuous little problem that occurs when guns are easily available.
Gee, you post telling folks to not discuss gun control in Britain and Australia but come here and decide you have value to add to the discussion about gun control in the U.S. Any chance you telling us who is paying you to troll these articles and respond? If no one is, please take some of your own advice and don’t try to do an analysis on the U.S. The issue is not access to objects or lack of access. Violence in a society is more complex and much more related to culture and sociology. The U.S. has its set of each, and part of that is the right of the people to be armed. If someone doesn’t like it, rather than trying to change it there is always Mexico where citizens are not allowed to be armed. Warm climate and some nice beaches, very cheap to retire there.
Also, if video games and other media, such as commercials, have no influence on people, why would a company spend $3.5M for one single Superbowl commercial if they didn’t think it would influence people in their thinking and decision making.
“Gee, you post telling folks to not discuss gun control in Britain and Australia”
Actually, I’m happy for you to discuss it – but please just check your claims first. And don’t claim that the statistical comparisons support the pro-gun-manufacturer position, because they don’t.
“Any chance you telling us who is paying you to troll these articles and respond?”
Nobody. I’m just flabbergasted that there is so much misinformation and fiction masquerading as argument, and it worries me that the NRA wants to get a foothold in australia, where they’ll bring these very same bogus arguments to bear on our own gun laws – and they’ll get people killed.
“If no one is, please take some of your own advice and don’t try to do an analysis on the U.S.”
No.
“rather than trying to change it there is always Mexico where citizens are not allowed to be armed”
And that’s what I’m talking about. Have you actually checked that claim for yourself? Or are you getting all of your information from pro-gun pundits? Mexicans have (believe it or not) a constitutional right to arm themselves. They have a right to own a weapon for self-defense. Where they let themselves down is that they make it difficult to actually PURCHASE a gun – so the black market has taken over (fed by 10′s of thousands of guns being smuggled from the US each year – and please, before you deny that, just go check for yourself).
“Also, if video games and other media, such as commercials, have no influence on people, why would a company spend $3.5M for one single Superbowl commercial if they didn’t think it would influence people in their thinking and decision making”
I didn’t say they have no influence. They’re clearly very influential – judging by the massive quantities of money that people spend every year on them. What I’m saying is that they aren’t unique to the US – every english-speaking country sees american movies and video games – and so they don’t excuse the US’ relatively appalling violent crime statistics relative to other developed countries (and those english-speaking countries in particular). If you want an excuse, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Maybe at gun laws?
It is now extremely obvious you see only what you want to see, or at least only post the details that support your view.
You failed to mention that Mexico’s constitution allows for the Federal government to “provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms.” Which they have done. Through the restrictions in place it is virtually impossible for the citizens to privately own firearms.
BTW, unlike you who is a master at google and interpret what you google to support your feelings, I have actually spent time in Mexico and seen things first hand.
And throwing out gun laws as the problem, you have got to be kidding? There are laws against drugs, their are laws against murder, their are laws against speeding. Yet people speed, there is a massive drug problem in the U.S., and to believe any gun law penalizing someone for using a gun in a crime when the criminal does not care about the consequences is illogical at minimum. The U.S. does not have a tool problem (firearms, drugs, fast cars), it has a culture and sociological problem. The same as Mexico has its cultural problem.
You are obviously a paid poster. Someone sure is desperate to push the agenda to have full time employees like yourself.
“It is now extremely obvious you see only what you want to see, or at least only post the details that support your view”
At least I read posts before responding.
“Through the restrictions in place it is virtually impossible for the citizens to privately own firearms”
You basically repeated what I already said – that the mexican government makes it hard to actually _buy_ a gun. But then you take it a step too far (as you did in the previous post), and claim that either “citizens are not allowed to be armed” or that it is “virtually impossible”
Meanwhile, mexico has a gun ownership rate of 15 per hundred residents. What parts of “not allowed” or “virtually impossible” are you struggling with?
“And throwing out gun laws as the problem, you have got to be kidding? There are laws against drugs”
Drugs are a difficult problem, I agree.
“their are laws against murder”
And people still kill, yes. But at much, much lower rates than if there WEREN’T any laws against murder … don’t you think?
“their are laws against speeding. Yet people speed”
Sure, but again – most people do follow the road rules to a degree that car accidents have fallen over time. For a bit of a lark, go google the video series “Russian Road Rage and Accidents”. And see what happens when driving and vehicle use aren’t regulated and enforced.
“and to believe any gun law penalizing someone for using a gun in a crime when the criminal does not care about the consequences is illogical at minimum”
Absolutely. So how about preventing the bad guy from having the gun in the first place? Make it _hard_ to get a gun illegally. Take stock of the guns that do exist and start properly regulating their transfer. Impose a small cost on ownership and use the funds to buy them back – get the number of untraceable guns down, and bad guys will find it harder to get a gun. That’s the purpose of the australian and UK gun laws. Yeah, sure, some bad guys will still get guns – but they won’t be the average mugger or deadbeat, and the mere act of buying a gun illegally becomes riskier for the rest.
“You are obviously a paid poster”
No, I’m not.
Nope, not when guns are easily available. Homicides are higher where there are a lot of blacks and hispanics. That has been proven in with the Data in the USA alone. Autralia’s homicide rate is lower because it is mostly euro white population.
In fact the euro- whites in the USA have a lower homicide rate than does Australia. Even though we have the most guns of all.
Bingo!
And shave that population down to descendants of the founding generations (Englishmen, Scots, Irish, Dutch, and a few badasses from elsewhere in Europe)and that crime rate goes nigh onto zero.
Period.
It was a nice place, until all the scum moved in and took control.
Well, let’s flip that around. Normally I suggest not focusing on mass-shootings because the background murder rate is more serious.
But where are all of these black mass-shooters?
Go to google, search for “mass shooter” and select the “images” tab.
See?
And if I was looking for a mass murderer or even a serial killer, Whites would be my starting point. However, as sick as these rare , and they are rare thank God, crimes are. They pale in the homicide count committed by blacks and hispanics in this country. Your odds of dying by mass shooter are less than being beat to death with hands and feat in this country. And far less than dying by mass shooter in hoplophopic Norway.
They pale next to homicides committed by whites, too.
“In fact the euro- whites in the USA have a lower homicide rate than does Australia”
Ok, I’ll take that bait. Cite your data. Where are you getting this information.
This is going to be fun …
I have already cited this data on a previous article with you. It comes from the FBI unified crime report you cited. I’ll not be citing over and over, if you cannot remember too bad.
The short of it though is that there is a 4.2 homicide rate in the USA, Over 50% is caused by blacks. That drops the rate too 2.1 for non-blacks. At this point one must do some math as hispanics are grouped with whites for determining who the perp is. I wonder why they do that.. I think we all know. Anyways I digress. We are left with 2.1 % for non-blacks correct? Now you have to do some work as the powers that be have obfuscated for their own purpose the rest. But it is relatively simple to reach a fairly accurate number. Both the black population and the hispanic one are of comparable size. According to prison populations blacks are about 5 times as likely as whites to commit murder, and hispanics are 3 times as likely. Which gives a simple equation. 2.1 *3/5= 1.26 as the hispanic portion of the homicide rate. 2.1- 1.26= 0.84 being the euro white and everybody else rate. Australia has a rate of 1% and is 92% white and 7% asian.
Now you will no doubt try to spin around this but other data backs up my work
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/02/18/a-rising-share-hispanics-and-federal-crime/
“According to the Pew Center on the States (2008), incarceration rates vary greatly across racial and ethnic groups. In 2006, 1.5% of Hispanic adults were incarcerated, while 3.4% of blacks and less than 1% of whites were behind bars.”
Now it does not say how much less the whites are than the 1%. But working the math. 1.5 +1 + 3.4= 5.9 then 4.2/5.9= 0.71 will give nearly the same numbers. White rate 0.71, hispanic rate 1.06, and black rate of 2.4.
“I have already cited this data on a previous article with you. It comes from the FBI unified crime report you cited. I’ll not be citing over and over, if you cannot remember too bad.”
Found it.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/23/nra-chief-why-cant-you-see-that-armed-school-guards-is-a-good-idea/#comment-445354
That was monday the 24th – 10 days ago.
You actually did cite a source. Well done.
Actually, we’re about in the middle of developed nations as far as violent crime goes, and for extra fun, the Right to Carry states, on average experience 25% less violent crime than the non right to carry states.
You take a look at the UK, for example, and women are twice as likely to be raped as they are in the US.
I’m calling bollocks on that.
Name your data set. Look at the last ICVS and you’ll see that you’ve got it the wrong way around.
Why don’t you link YOUR data. You seem to demand every body else do so.
Interesting. That post didn’t appear. Let’s see if it’s the link of if somebody’s finally banned me.
Seach for “international crime victims survey”
skip the wiki link, click on second one, from the netherlands (rechten.uvt.nl)
Click on “key publications”
Look at page 78 in the first PDF (ICVS-5 (2004/05))
The reason I ask for data is that (as should be clear by now) pretty much all data sets have problems, and you need to know about them. The FBI UCR pretty much can’t be compared with other countries, because it’s still using 1920′s definitions for most crimes while most other countries have moved on (although homicide is straightforward enough that I don’t see a problem – somebody died, somebody killed them, it was considered deliberate in some way, so just count the bodies)
I’m surprised to hear that you’ve cited the UCR before. I don’t recall anyone here citing anything any all – I’ll go check later and see if I can find the post. I apologise if that’s the case.
I haven’t dug into your post about blacks and whites yet. You could be right, but not for the reason you think. I think you’re making a mistake to assume that all hispanics are listed as “white”. And you’ve ignored the “unknown” and “other” categories – about 1/3 of homicide perpetrators fall into one of those categories. More later.
There is a considerable “unknown” however. It being unknown one would consider it would follow the “known” as to perps. The other accounts for a very small segment and is unlikely to skew the numbers much.
As for the international data. I suspect many definitions have been changed to reflect the PC left which pollutes most Europe governments. I do not trust their data streams very much. One must delve into it very closely to see where they are trying to manipulate data to fit their sick progressive world view. Kind of like the FBI data including hispanics in the white data to distort it and make the black stats not appear so horrendous.
As for hispanics all in the white category. There are only three catagories. White Black and other. With other only committing 2% of the homicides.
And yes, I focus on homicides as it is clear, there is a dead body. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
Wow Techno… you have made my day. The data set you want to use is produced by the UN. It is a total farce as all things UN are. Are you really this mucha far left nut or have you just regurgitated something you read on NPR?
Either way, lets take a look at what you linked.
…………..
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/
“The ICVS is the most comprehensive instrument developed yet to monitor and study volume crimes, perception of crime and attitudes towards the criminal justice system in a comparative, international perspective. The data are from surveys amongst the general public and therefore not influ- enced by political or ideological agendas of governments of individual countries”
…………………
No this data is influenced solely by ideological agenda of the U.N. Kind ofmakes my point when they put this disclaimer in.
But lets look at that page now 78. Here is the “question” asked in this “survey”
………………..
“5.2 Sexual offences
The question1 put to respondents was:
‘First, a rather personal question. People sometimes grab, touch or assault others for sexual reasons in a really offensive way. This can happen either at home, or elsewhere, for instance in a pub, the street, at school, on public transport, in cinemas, on the beach, or at one’s workplace. Over the past five years, has anyone done this to you? Please take your time to think about this.’
…………………..
Techno, this is not data about rape. This is pc crap under which Slick Willie would have been a multiple serial sexual assaulter.
Please, if you are going to use a data set, make it a real one, not this far left drivel. Interpol has a real data.
“There is a considerable “unknown” however. It being unknown one would consider it would follow the “known” as to perps”
Er … why? That’s just an assumption. Part of the problem you have is that the definitions that the FBI is using date from the 20′s. They’re not hiding anything – they’re just using preconceptions that predate your … *ahem*, concerns.
The other problem you have is that hispanics aren’t all “white”. Go take a look at the islands of hispaniola (haiti, dominican republic) and puerto rico – you’ll notice a heck of a lot of descendants from african slaves. To the FBI, those people are black AND hispanic. I think your assumptions are bogus.
“As for the international data. I suspect many definitions have been changed to reflect the PC left which pollutes most Europe governments”
Are you saying that european crime stats are being deliberately inflated?
“I do not trust their data streams very much. One must delve into it very closely to see where they are trying to manipulate data to fit their sick progressive world view.
*sigh*. Whatever. But at least their definitions are consistent across countries, as I’ve explained before.
“Kind of like the FBI data including hispanics in the white data to distort it and make the black stats not appear so horrendous”
Hispanics can be counted as white or black in FBI statistics.
“Wow Techno… you have made my day. The data set you want to use is produced by the UN”
No. It isn’t. Go check again. It _was_ produced (it is no longer produced at all) produced by the dutch ministry of justice, in a joint effort with the british home office. You might be confusing it with the UNODC, which is a different group / data set.
“It is a total farce as all things UN are. Are you really this mucha far left nut or have you just regurgitated something you read on NPR?”
Hmm. Somebody’s desperately looking for ways to ignore information that he doesn’t like.
“No this data is influenced solely by ideological agenda of the U.N. Kind of makes my point when they put this disclaimer in”
Yeah, well, as I pointed out – the ICVS wasn’t a UN-run project. So whatever your prejudices about the UN, they don’t apply.
“Techno, this is not data about rape”
Hey – I asked you to nominate your data source. As I’ve explained before (numerous times) you can’t compare victimisation surveys with hard recorded crime data for exactly this reason – the definitions for things like this are much broader than “some” countries apply. But the questions ARE standard across countries, which means they can be compared cross-country and over time.
You’re not telling me anyting that I haven’t already explained. Yes, you’ve started to take an interest in the data, and that’s great, but some of us have already been through this.
“Please, if you are going to use a data set, make it a real one, not this far left drivel. Interpol has a real data.”
Really? From the interpol FAQ:
“Does INTERPOL publish crime statistics?
INTERPOL’s International Crime Statistics are no longer being collected from member countries and previous statistics are no longer published.
The decision to remove the statistics was taken as some users and some members of the media were making comparisons between countries based on these statistics, when different collection methods make such comparisons problematic.”
Do you want to try again?
Last first as is my won’t.
Yes Interpol quit disseminating their data to the public. A fact I was unaware of as I had used them often.Seems the actual hard data embarrassed certain countries. And the progressives could not use bogus “surveys” to achieve their objectives.
“Yeah, well, as I pointed out – the ICVS wasn’t a UN-run project. ”
According to the link ot was under a UN coversheet. I see it was not a UN report. That does not make it any more factual for real crime. As you have pointed out it is a survey , not hard data.
Yes there are black hispanics. However such a population is so small as to be considered statistically insignificant. If you have any proof to back up your claim that black hispanics would skew my numbers significantly, well put up or shut up.
Here is mexicos ethnic breakdown.
” mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%” from the CIA factbook.
And from wiki. Yes I know, hardly a reliable source when progressive issues are involved. However, when a progressive site acknowledges the truth it is the gold standard in a debate. And what truth is that you might ask. Well Techno…
“The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the “white” category. ”
You grasp at straws.
The fact remains that hispanics are a, and The, major component of the white homicide rate in the FBI data. You have not addressed this as being mistaken so evidently you cannot. I’ve shown you my proof, you just spin your silly notions without a shred of proof on this. Seems you are desperately looking for ways to ignore information that you do not like.
Now for the last.
“Er … why? ”
Well er, maybe..er for the same reason an election can be called with very good accuracy when 70% of the data(votes) are known. that the data will trend the same. And while occasionally an election will go the opposite than called it is always close.
There is no reason to consider that the unknown 30% of homicides would trend any different than the known data set. Unless you er .. er .. er what? Think maybe “The Predator” was reality.
Seriously, you grasp at straws.
Which brings us back to the whole point starting all this. Now that you have been unable to refute my calculations. Your guns as causation for homicide is .. how should I say it. To use your vernacular.
I’m calling bollocks on that.
Comparing homicide data within comparable racial groups internationally clearly destroys your fantasy.
BTW Techno.
We do not even have to go international. Comparing homicide data, for distinctly different races and peoples, in the USA alone destroys your fantasy.
“Yes Interpol quit disseminating their data to the public. A fact I was unaware of as I had used them often”
Often? They stopped publishing stats in 2006. Just how often do you use these statistics?
“Seems the actual hard data embarrassed certain countries. And the progressives could not use bogus “surveys” to achieve their objectives”
No, as they say on the web site (and as I’ve pointed out repeatedly) there are just too many differences between the ways that countries record crime statistics to be able to naively compare the numbers. The UCR doesn’t even count all rapes, not even the violent ones, let alone the broader “sexual assault” category used by most countries.
“According to the link ot was under a UN coversheet. I see it was not a UN report. That does not make it any more factual for real crime. As you have pointed out it is a survey , not hard data”
If not being a UN project doesn’t make any difference – why did you dismiss it as automatically being wrong (leftist, skewed, etc) because you thought it was a UN project? Do you understand that it works both ways?
“Yes there are black hispanics. However such a population is so small as to be considered statistically insignificant. If you have any proof to back up your claim that black hispanics would skew my numbers significantly, well put up or shut up”
Hang on … you’re the one who’s piling up the assumptions. The “black” component of the UCR stands out, and that’s fine. But then you assume that you can just apply the population distribution of black/white hispanics onto the remaining crime figures – while simultaneously trying to claim that “blacks” commit more crimes than “whites”. Do you understand the problem?
For goodness’ sake, man – do some googling and you’ll find that there are scholarly articles that deal with this stuff. But before citing them, at least read them.
““The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the “white” category. ””
What that doesn’t say is how many in the “white” category are hispanics. Yeah, sure, all cats are mammals – but how many mammals are cats? (I’m actually just messing with you now – I don’t think you’re even close to understanding the problems in your reasoning).
“You grasp at straws”
Uh-huh. I’m rubber, you’re glue.
“The fact remains that hispanics are a, and The, major component of the white homicide rate in the FBI data”
The _fact_? You might actually be able to prove that (and you haven’t come close yet), but you need to do better than just plugging in any number that happen to suit. Before using prison populations as a substitute for homicide stats, actually find out what the prisoners are in their for – most prisoners in the US are for drug offenses, so how on earth can you translate that for homicide? In order to prove that whites are less violent than blacks and hispanics, you also appear to be assuming part of what you’re trying to prove – i.e. that white hispanics commit more homicides (per capita) than white non-hispanics.
Come on – put some effort in.
“You have not addressed this as being mistaken so evidently you cannot”
Oh, I have. I really have.
“There is no reason to consider that the unknown 30% of homicides would trend any different than the known data set. Unless you er .. er .. er what? Think maybe “The Predator” was reality.”
Why aren’t you asking the most obvious question … WHY are those races “unknown”?
“Which brings us back to the whole point starting all this. Now that you have been unable to refute my calculations”
I’m not sure what there is to refute. You’re making a bunch of assumptions that you can’t support. Unknown means unknown – you can’t just substitute numbers that support your hypothesis and declare victory. You actually don’t know how many in the “white” category are hispanics (or “black” for that matter). You can’t substitute distributions of all crime convictions (the overwhelming majority of which are NOT homicide – or even violent) for missing homicide data. You can’t just assume your conclusion to justify your assumptions.
It appears that this data really is devilishly hard to track down. If you google around a bit, you’ll find that a lot of people use this quote from the CDC:
“Homicide rates in 2010 among non-Hispanic, African-American males 10-24 years of age (51.5 per 100,000) exceeded those of Hispanic males (13.5 per 100,000) and non-Hispanic, White males in the same age group (2.9 per 100,000)”
Which would tend to hurt your case, until you realise (as nobody seems to) that those figures are talking about _victims_.
“Comparing homicide data within comparable racial groups internationally clearly destroys your fantasy”
Ha! So you can’t show your working for the US, and you dare to claim that it’s just the same everywhere else so therefore you’re right.
As I pointed out the that “rocket” character – there are enough african nations with (far) lower homicide rates than the US to suggest that your race-based theory is, let’s say, flawed.
“They’d like the US to be a place where owning guns is unnecessary.” Unnecessary for whom? Who decides what “necessary” means? Do law-abiding gun-owners get a say in that decision? It’s OK for them to have armed guards – it’s “necessary” because they’re famous and important and all kinds of weirdos are out to get them. The rest of us? Nah. We’re just little children playing with dangerous toys. We’re not *really* threatened. We’re just conservatives. Disarm US and everything will be nice again.
That paragraph went slightly awry. “Them” in the fifth sentence refers to the gun-grabbing celebrities who reserve the firearms for themselves – not to law-abiding gun-owners. Next time, proofread before hitting Submit…
You see, for people like techno, zeke, and sinz54, only the Nobility of the 1% should be protected, not the villeins and serfs of the 99%.
Techno just loves shilling for the corrupt ruling class.
““They’d like the US to be a place where owning guns is unnecessary.””
If you’re going to try to score points, at least use my actual words. I was very obviously referring to the “armed response” signs.
The rest of your post is rubbish because you ignored what I wrote and replaced it with a straw man.
Debating techno on guns is boring. He keeps repeating the same dumb points over and over again.
More interesting though, why does techno reject the theory of evolution?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/#comment-4166176
And, here is techno admitting that gun bans won’t stop criminals from getting guns.
http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/12/22/assault-the-democrat-media-complex-strikes-again/#comment-10696
And in that statement, he makes a long winded diatribe against certain 21st century advances (I wonder if he would of derided the Apple II PC as crap compared to minicomputers). For someone who calls himself “techno”, he sure is technophobic. But then again, it isn’t surprising for someone who I suspect, rejects evolution.
Help! I’m being stalked by an illiterate, armed with google.
The guy who lionized the corrupt MSM with references to watergate. Who said that the internet won’t expose scandals…
You never heard of wikileaks or Rathergate didn’t you?
You are stuck in the past.
Techno wrote “Where the nutjobs who obsess about them and stalk them and want to force themselves into their lives or randomly decide that if they can’t have them nobody can … couldn’t just walk into a gun show and buy a semi-automatic weapon with no kind of background check”
I actually have some reservations about the gun show deal which bypasses even the basic checks that happen if you buy a gun through a regular gun shop. Plus gun shop people or range owners at least get to look at you and if you are acting strangely have a chance to head you off if you seem dangerous because it is very much in their best interests to do so.
I am curious as to what you would think about the private transfer of guns. I have a classic “semi automatic” pistol (a 9mm browning Hi-Power) a very collectable gun although this one has seen its day, still serviceable but I do not take it to the range much. I swapped with a guy I used to work with for a guitar I had gathering dust after my son quit his lessons. That is very legal where I live. It has a serial number but I doubt it could be easily traced. Made in Argentina from Browning in the 70′s.
Would that be illegal in your plan? If I wanted to give it to my son in law (we are going skeet shooting next weekend when we come to visit in GA if the weather is decent, my first time and really looking forward to that). What if I wanted to give him the pistol? So far as I know it is not registered anywhere. What if I gave it to my son? He is legal age and very responsible about guns, anyway it was really his guitar to begin with.
The devil is in the details. As a person, gun owner or otherwise, I do not want lunatics having these things. Nobody does. But how can you craft a law that stops a lunatic. Maybe a medical form signed by a doctor attesting to lack of certain conditions would help or maybe not.
So how is the law you are talking about going to help?
“I actually have some reservations about the gun show deal which bypasses even the basic checks that happen if you buy a gun through a regular gun shop”
It means that all the bad guys are guaranteed a way to find a weapon without ever being checked against law enforcement databases. Until it’s closed, everything else is pointless.
“Plus gun shop people or range owners at least get to look at you and if you are acting strangely have a chance to head you off if you seem dangerous because it is very much in their best interests to do so”
Why? If nobody has a record of the sale, then who is going to trace it? Money is money. The NRA will keep lobbying against closing those loopholes anyway, regardless of what happens.
“Would that be illegal in your plan?”
If you didn’t report the exchange, and if the new owner didn’t register it, then yes. Very (although you wouldn’t be responsible for him not registering it)
“If I wanted to give it to my son in law (we are going skeet shooting next weekend when we come to visit in GA if the weather is decent, my first time and really looking forward to that). What if I wanted to give him the pistol?”
If you don’t report it, and he doesn’t register it, then that should be two separate federal crimes.
“So far as I know it is not registered anywhere”
If it were me calling the shots, then having an unregistered firearm would be a federal crime. It needn’t be a big imposition – just turn up at a police station, show them the gun and ID, and have them put it on a database. I’d give you a 1 year amnesty – no questions asked. If you wanted to turn it in, I’d probably suggest a buy-back plan to encourage people to do that (if necessary, I’d fund out out of a small registration application fee – it wouldn’t take much).
“What if I gave it to my son? He is legal age and very responsible about guns”
If he’s responsible, then he’ll register it.
“The devil is in the details. As a person, gun owner or otherwise, I do not want lunatics having these things. Nobody does. But how can you craft a law that stops a lunatic”
The first thing you have to do is get visibility over the transfer of guns. Only then can you rationally start discussing who should be allowed to acquire a gun. At the moment, it doesn’t seem to matter what rules you have, when a convicted murderer (see the recent fireman shootings) can just travel to a gun show and buy a semi-auto without a background check (and somebody sold it to him – at least, that’s what the police currently thinkg).
“Maybe a medical form signed by a doctor attesting to lack of certain conditions would help or maybe not”
Why not? After the transfer of guns is being effectively traced, and once there are conceivable consequences for selling/giving a gun to a lunatic, then why not ask for a letter from a GP? Everyone goes to a doctor now and then – while you’re there, ask for a letter saying you’re not insane. Then, when you buy a gun, the seller keeps the letter. When the feds come knocking after you’ve gone on a rampage and posted your manifesto on the internet, the seller can give them the letter (although, personally, I’d keep the original and give them a notarised copy) and the feds can go have a chat to the GP and find out what he was thinking.
These things aren’t onerous. But as it stands, there are ways for bad guys to get guns which don’t impose any consequences on the people who sell them, for not taking basic precautions.
“So how is the law you are talking about going to help?”
Just start by making the sale/transfer/ownership of firearms that can kill rooms full of children no longer a unaccountable free-for-all. Nothing I’ve suggested here actually impedes a sane, law-abiding person from owning a gun. But it does start making the people who OWN guns take some legally-sanctioned responsibility for them, and be very careful about who they give them to.
I suspect that could take a decade to become effective. Once that’s happened, there can be a rational debate about whether semi-auto, concealable 9mm pistols with 30-round magazines should come with a higher expectation of responsibility and/or documentation.
You already admitted that criminals can’t be stopped from getting whatever guns and magazines they want.
That’s why I said that your political movement must be completely destroyed. You’re not interested in honest debate. The only way to finish you off is to destroy your livelihood. Your bureaucratic power must be destroyed.
Go away. Please.
You have nothing to contribute. You make wild claims about things that I’ve said, you don’t seem to have any reluctance to misquote me, you seem to be acting like the annoying drunk at a party who really just wants to pick a fight to show off his mad karate skills.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m not particularly interested in finding out.
If you have something relevant to add to the conversation, then by all means – pitch in. But so far you’ve settled on a strategy of just accusing me of things that don’t make any sense.
Go have another drink, and leave the spirited debate to the big kids.
There is no gun show loop hole. Every sale, except private ones, has to be run through a NICS check the same as any you would buy from Wal Mart.
There are very few private sales at gun shows. Those are no different than me selling a gun of mine to someone else.
That’s exactly what I said. And some states require that even PRIVATE sales at gun shows run background checks.
But people have cars, and can travel.
Back at the end of the 90′s, the ATF published a study on (among other things) where illegal guns were coming from. They seemed to think that gun shows were a problem.
I don’t seem to be able to post links, so google the title “Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces”
Yes, because a study produced by the atf during Slick Willies reign would be considered as authoritive and without agenda.
Try again Tecno. This garbage is as trustworthy as anything out of The Retards Dept of inJustice under Holder.
WOW, is all I can say if you find it anything but agenda driven propaganda.
Aah, Fantom. Is there NO information that you disagree with that you can’t dismiss?
Here’s a review of the ATF’s gun show surveillance activities, conducted in 2007 by the DOJ office of inspector general. 2007 was when one of those GOOD presidents was in the white house. So let’s have a look.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/results.htm
Cast your eyes over some of the information in that report. It’s not long.
“From FY 2004 through FY 2006, ATF opened approximately 6,233 firearms trafficking investigations. During that 3-year period, ATF Special Agents conducted 202 operations at 195 of an estimated 6,000 gun shows held nationwide – or about 3.3 percent of the shows. Table 3 shows the number of investigative operations at gun shows conducted by each field division. … (go look at the table)
As a result of the 202 investigative operations undertaken at 195 gun shows, ATF made 121 arrests that resulted in 83 convictions. (Some cases are still pending, so their final disposition is unknown.) Additionally, ATF seized 5,345 firearms during these investigative operations”
(Columbus)
“According to the division’s SAC, in 2006, 5,000 guns used in crimes were traced to gun sales in Ohio. About 75 percent of those guns were recovered in Ohio and the other 25 percent were recovered in other states, primarily in New York. The SAC said that crime gun trace data shows that Ohio ranks among the top 10 states that are sources for crime guns recovered in the United States”
(Houston)
“Surveillance teams working inside the gun show collected information on suspicious activity. Suspects identified as convicted felons by the inside surveillance team had their weapons seized at the shows to protect public safety. Any other enforcement activity, when warranted, occurred away from the gun show. The operations resulted in 12 arrests, 6 convictions (some cases are still ongoing), and 4 seized firearms”
(phoenix)
“According to the operational plans and the SAC, no enforcement activity took at the gun shows. Covert surveillance teams inside the gun shows observed vendor and customer behaviors to identify potential straw purchasers and other illegal activity. If it appeared that gun purchasers were returning to Mexico with guns, they were stopped at the port of entry and their vehicles searched. Those operations alone resulted in 13 arrests, 3 convictions, and 193 seizures of illegally purchased firearms”
(New Orleans)
“After reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with crime guns recovered in the area and interviewing known gang members and other criminals, ATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns. The subjects obtained the weapons either through a third party engaged in straw purchasing or by dealing directly with private sellers who were hobbyists or private gun collectors and therefore not subject to federal regulations”
(Reno)
“ATF agents attended one gun show in FY 2003 and confirmed that illegal firearms sales and other illegal transactions were occurring. Intelligence gathered from this first show was used to plan a longer-term investigation into interstate firearms trafficking. During subsequent operations at Reno gun shows during FY 2004, Special Agents engaged in undercover activities that included Special Agents who were residents of California attempting to purchase firearms in violation of the GCA from licensed and unlicensed dealers. Subsequent operations focused on a number of licensed and unlicensed dealers who were illegally dealing in firearms at the shows. In these operations, agents purchased firearms and identified violations related to “off paper” sales, sales to out-of-state residents, and dealing in firearms without a license. …
As a result of the operations at the Reno gun shows, ATF seized or purchased 400 firearms before making arrests and executing search warrants, which resulted in the seizure of an additional 600 firearms and the recovery of explosives. Fourteen suspects were charged with 52 counts of federal and state firearms violations. Eleven of the 14 were subsequently convicted.”
And that’s not all. Go read it.
And I should point out that when the NRA found out that the ATF was arresting all those crims buying guns at gun shows, did they shout “huzzah! that’s EXACTLY what we need!”?
Like heck.
No, they hired a PI to follow the ATF agents around and rounded up some aggrieved people to complain to congress.
Because the NRA is very, very concerned about illegal gun sales.
“Aah, Fantom. Is there NO information that you disagree with that you can’t dismiss?”
Learned that trick from you. However in this case it is warrented.
83 prosecutions, SHAMWOW. Out of hundreds of tousands of people at gun shows. Looks like it proves my point about there being little problem with gun shows.
5000, guns used in crime traced to gun shows. How do they know? Oh yeah, they were bought legally with all the paperwork of a NICS check. Once again your position on gun shows is undermined.
And I’ll repeat. The ATF is a rouge agency. It’s self serving reports are cast in ideological agenda driven policy.
You want to know who the biggest gun runner to criminals is.. Erick Holder and his boss obama.
“83 prosecutions, SHAMWOW. Out of hundreds of tousands of people at gun shows”
No, from less than 3% of gun shows over a two year period, and with targeted investigations – they’re only checking a fraction of the purchases at those shows.
“Looks like it proves my point about there being little problem with gun shows”
No, what it proves is that even under the pro-freedom GWB, the department of justice thought that gun shows were a serious problem – confirming that their “bias” hadn’t changed since the report they published under freedom-hating bill clinton.
I have more from the ATF for that period. After the NRA demonstrated its deep concern about the gunshow loophole by complaining to congress about the ATF investigating it, there were some congressional hearings. I suspect that you’ll just dismiss the transcript for that as well.
“5000, guns used in crime traced to gun shows. How do they know? Oh yeah, they were bought legally with all the paperwork of a NICS check”
Er … no. Did you read the article? They were traced by good old-fashioned legwork. If they’d been purchased by the book, there wouldn’t have been anything to prosecute for.
“Once again your position on gun shows is undermined”
You keep saying it, but the DOJ and ATF say otherwise. But what would they know?
“And I’ll repeat. The ATF is a rouge agency. It’s self serving reports are cast in ideological agenda driven policy”
*shrug*
You’re an evidence-repelling device. Anything that threatens your prejudices is dismissed as skewed, self-serving, lying, left-wing, whatever. I could get you a signed statement from reagan himself and you’d find a way to dismiss it. Other people might be reading this, though – and I think that, to any objective reader, I’ve now demonstrated that there is ample evidence to show that gun shows are a prime source of guns used by criminals.
“You want to know who the biggest gun runner to criminals is.. Erick Holder and his boss obama”
As was the guy before him, by that standard. Bush’s ATF ran guns as well. But I think it’s a stretch to claim that either of them were the “biggest”. Judging by the estimates of guns “run” by the ATF vs US-sourced guns recovered every year in mexico, the ATF was a tiny fish in the cross-border gun-running business.
Not going to happen techno.
This database where all guns in America are registered with the government to qualified owners over the next decade is not possible.
I appreciate the response. I wanted to know where you stand because I think you represent a point of view taken by many Americans who are tired of the gun violence. I do not agree with the program you suggest. My inner libertarian gets twitchy when we talk about the government having that much information.
Anyway if you can carry that tough old hunk of metal around and fire a 30 round magazine through it without a problem you are a better gun maven than I am. I could care less about the grocery coupon buy back.
I do not want our kids to be targets like this again. I am not waiting ten years for a plan that will not happen. Had a conversation with a friend who is my attorney and lifelong Democrat over some Scotch last night. We both thought that some bans on extended magazines and some rifles would happen. We could not agree about more security for schools. I wanted more even considering cost.
Terrorism is now an art form, if performed by “artists” with unionized SAG-AFTRA credentials.
obama,
Put up or shut up. Either make the effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment and live with the consequences or enforce/follow the law.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is nonnegotiable.
No kids ever put on a coonskin cap, took a Kentucky long rifle to school and shot their classmates. There’s been a cultural shift from Fess Parker posing with his rifle to that picture of Keaneau Reeves in the black coat and the blank stare.
And everyone wants to say “I didn’t do it!” Are “be the bad-guy” video games to blame? Are “root for the gangster” movies to blame? Is pharmaceutical quackery to blame? No. No more than one democrat casting a single vote is to blame for Obama being the president.
Although one Democrat casting multiple votes may well be.
My friends and I used to slaughter Nazis and Japs by the thousands on the school playground at recess. We used to take turns killing and being killed. None of my friends nor I murdered our schoolmates when we got to high school. We didn’t go postal and murder our co-workers. We didn’t murder cops or firefighters. Some of us have bad tempers – that’s about it.
We knew who the good guys and the bad guys were. We knew under what conditions good guys used violence or refrained from using violence. There were rules.
Today – the good guys are now the bad guys, the bad guys are now the good guys, and violence is NEVER Ok. A better world? Prove it…
Yeah well I resolve this is a matter of interpretation.
Such bloviators as Piers Morgan declare that UK/Australian gunlaws are successful…..despite empirical evidence that these “gun control laws” result in an increase in violent/confrontational crime….
The failure/success of “gun control” in the minds of the gun-grabbers has no realation with crime, violence or safety….despite the sophistry.
One must realize that the UK/OZ guncontrol is successful….because it disarms the law abiding citizens…which is it’s purpose. The purpose is control so that the rulers need not fear their subjects. Talk of crime, violence and safety by the gun-grabbers is “gaslighting”….
Things get a little easier once ya understand.
“Such bloviators as Piers Morgan declare that UK/Australian gunlaws are successful…..despite empirical evidence that these “gun control laws” result in an increase in violent/confrontational crime….”
In the UK, there is no debate – all forms of crime (violent, non-violent, you name it) have decreased and are still decreasing. That’s just a fact. Go look at the British Crime Survey and Home Office statistics a see for yourself.
Australia is a more mixed story. Kidnapping, robbery, homicide are all down on where they were in 1997. Assaults are still increasing, though. I’m convinced that it’s alcohol-fueled – it (conspicuously) peaks in summer and is at its highest levels on friday/saturday/sunday. The police and hospitals report that admissions and arrests are highest shortly after closing time. I am quite sure that adding concealed firearms to the mix would not improve anything.
“The failure/success of “gun control” in the minds of the gun-grabbers has no realation with crime, violence or safety….despite the sophistry.”
Well, that’s just not true.
“One must realize that the UK/OZ guncontrol is successful….because it disarms the law abiding citizens…which is it’s purpose”
No, it doesn’t. Law-abiding citizens in the UK can still own long arms (and small-caliber repeating rifles). Australians can still own handguns and rifles – they just have supply evidence of what they want to use them for. If you want a pistol, you just have to join a gun club and turn up for practice. Australians are, by no means, “disarmed”
“The purpose is control so that the rulers need not fear their subjects”
And yet we’re avoiding the slide into tyrrany for our second decade now. The biggest threat to democracy right now in australia is NEWS corp.
“Things get a little easier once ya understand”
I don’t think you understand. I’d love to hear where you get your evidence and arguments, though.
Oh – australians can own shotguns as well. I’ve heard that includes pump-action shotguns, but I haven’t checked.
The biggest thing I’ve personally fired was an old bolt-action .303 (army surplus) fitted with a new sight. I’m not a great shot – I seem to have a tendency to hit up and right of the target but I was pretty consistent at 300m, and I was getting better as the day went on. I can honestly see the attraction, as a sport.
I should admit that it wasn’t mine – I was on a defense department firing range with a couple of responsible adults present. Some AFP guys were practicing with pistols on the next range over. I’m pretty sure that I could – if I were genuinely worried about “tyranny” – do a fair bit of damage with a thing like that before the leviathan came and squelched me.
Yep, their anti-gun laws work so well that crime rates are falling in the USA too.
It is not that they cannot own a gun Techno. It is the laborious restrictions on owning one and using one which disarms them.
Yeah yeah I know……”I call bull hocky, link your data. “
No need. I agree that people do actually have to make an effort to own a gun here. We can’t just drop in to a gun show and buy a semi-auto, 100 rounds of ammo and stash them under a spare blanket without anyone knowing about it.
But if you think a few weeks to fill in some paperwork and having to maybe turn up at a firing range for a bit of practice now and then is “disarmed” then I hate to imagine how difficult you’re going to find it to actually fulfill that great dream of defending the nation, should the balloon go up.
Heck – those swiss have to turn up for drill and training and everything. And they have to follow LOTS of rules to keep their military weapon – as do the israelis. Are they disarmed by all that effort as well?
OK here’s my two centavos;
The Supreme’s ruled the police are not responsible for my safety in Castle Rock vs Gonzales.
So the politicians want to take away my guns–I offer a reasonable proposition.
1. Disarm all the criminals FIRST!
2. Fire all of your bodyguards and police security details at all levels of government. No armed protection for me = no armed protection for you.
3. Reduce the size, scope and power of all of the government branches and agencies so I will never have to worry about tyranny.
4. Then come talk to me
Happy New Year
-Burger
I like mine with lettuce and tomato, Heinz 57 and french fried potatoes….
I agree that when the Government turn in its 284Million hollow point rounds it purchased in 2012 for such departments as fish and game and interior department to name just two then we can talk about gun control. Government is after absolute control of the citizenry. Good luck with that.
Techno. Here is some of the wisdom of Dr. Sowell on the subject. Note that England has an absolute ban on all hand guns.
“The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England — or at least the law-abiding part of it.”
“It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in
England. “As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen,” Professor Malcolm points out.”
“In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.”
Yeah, well, you’ve got a guy who reckons obama’s just like hitler, and you don’t cite his sources.
I’m not in a position to properly debunk sowell – I just don’t have the time. If you can tell me where he’s getting his data from (and I can pretty much guarantee that you can’t, because he won’t tell you or you aren’t interested) then I’ll at least look into it.
But I can point out a few obvious stand-out problems with that quote…
He doesn’t seem to mention that, until the 1937 firearms act, there were really no effective restraints on gun ownership – you just had to pay a license fee and say it was for self defense. So if he’s going to claim a gun/crime relationship then he needs to prove that gun ownership rates actually decreased during that period. Can you quote those figures?
Why do you think he used the specific year of 1954 as his baseline and then waved his hand around and said “the 90′s” for his comparison? That’s conspicuously odd. The pro-gun lobby (as I’ve tried to demonstrate by numerous posts) likes to carefully pick its data points. Well, that’s probably the most carefully phrased comparison I’ve seen yet. Which year in the 90′s? What’s his source for 1954? Was there even any formalised recording of crime in 1954? And why only mention London? There are a few big cities in the UK – why ignore national statistics? That’s like covering US gun crime by only mentioning Chicago.
And when he says “London”, does he mean the city of London (which hasn’t changed its boundaries since roman times) or the greater London area (which has)? Does he simply mean crimes reported by the Met? I don’t know – and neither do you.
I don’t see anywhere that he’s mentioned the skyrocketing rate of ALL crime in the London metropolitan are during and immediately after the second world war – during which time gun laws didn’t change at all. I repeat: Not at all.
Crime absolutely boomed in post-war london. But his “after the second world war” presumably refers to the Firearms Act of 1968 – well after his conspicuously selective figures for 1954 (assuming they’re even accurate). And the changes in 1968 weren’t exactly earth-shattering. For the first time, convicted criminals couldn’t own a gun, and shotguns were registered. As near as I can tell, the 1968 laws were really a national harmonisation effort.
I think your source is probably full of crap. But if you can show me his data I might be convinced.
I, for one, wouldn’t mind it a bit if by a simple snap of my fingers I could give the anti-2A cult its most orgasmic desire,: ALL guns disappear, & I mean ALL OF THEM, military, law enforcement, private security, ‘civilian’, GONE, POOF, every last one disappears & VOILA, EVERYONE is ‘equal’. Except for that lil’ ‘inconvenient truth’ about some people being bigger/stronger/more aggressive than others, that is. Imagine the ‘fun’ that would happen once word got out (oh, did I forget to mention that all communication’s intact?) that every govtl entity from Fed to local, all private security, & our beloved troops are ‘gun free’ & therefore unable to deter or repel the consequences arising from a sudden return to Hobbes’ State of Nature. Oh, and there’s another thing that would occur when that snap happened, ALL artificially powered air, ground, & watercraft cease to function a la NBC’s Revolution. I figure in, say, 6hrs max the very same folks who self-righteously (& QUITE hypocritically given their protected status) proclaim that “violence NEVER solves ANYTHING” & believe that their ‘progressive’ orientation will shield them from street level reality would be shrieking for someone – ANYONE – to save them, & nobody does because they’re busy w/ their own probs. Yup, it’d be fun to see those sanctimonious biters bit by their own BS, truly would.
Almost forgot, the above only applies to the U.S. & its allied territories.
S.M. Stirling wrote/is writing an entire novel series about that.
Stirling’s series is part of what he calls the Emverse series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dies_the_Fire
Also note that on of the first things Hitler did when he became Chancellor of Germany was to have all personnally owned guns confiscated. Stalin also thought that was a nifty idea when he became Party Chairman. We all know how that worked out.
Do any of you guys bother to check these claims before posting them? I’m sure snopes must have a whole section devoted to this stuff – go have a look.
There was only one group of people prevented (by hitler) from owning guns – yes, that’s right, jews.
Hitler actually made it less onerous for most other people to own guns. He increased the range of people who were exempt from authorisation, gave hunters an automatic exemption from requiring a separate permit, lowered the age restriction and … let’s not forget … went and increased the size of the military – which (in case I need to point it out) got to own and carry lots and lots of lovely guns.
The one thing that hitler most definitely did NOT do was disarm the civilian population (with the exception of jews, obviously – but everything he did worked out badly for them).
Of course Hitlers’ disarming of the Jews had nothing to do with his plans for their destruction. He couldn’t possibly have thought it might be harder to slaughter them if they were armed. He only disarmed as a prank , perhaps to humiliate them. Their disarmed state could not have in any way have contributed to their ensuing slaughter. To even consider that alternative is ridiculous . I have sources, inexpensive but authentic genuine sources, to support my position. And any other position is ridiculous, and your sources are flawed or misinterpreted.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Innocents Betrayed, The True Story of Gun Control!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg
Homeland Security gives UC-Berkeley an ‘armored counterattack truck’ June 29, 2012
http://washingtonexaminer.com/homeland-security-gives-uc-berkeley-an-armored-counterattack-truck/article/2501042?custom_click=rss
Recent commentaries on what’s about to happen can be found at
Bob Owens blog, titled, “What you’ll see in the Rebellion.”
DaTechGuy blog, titled, “Fire meet gasoline.”
Those two have something resembling a clue about where all of this is going. The comments on Mr. Owen’s site are particularly revealing. Some of you are still arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Gun ownership is a cultural and societal institution, here. Taking guns from American citizens would be like taking wine from the French or beer from the Germans. It would be like taking the cross away from christians, or Mecca from the muslims.
How bad can it get?
Google: ‘a reader’s resources on systemic collapse.’ a short commentary followed by extensive resources and references, the latter half of which are still timely and relevant.
see also: ‘The Next American Revolution by Warren “Bones” Bonesteel’ A longer commentary followed by references and resources. Somewhat dated, but still relevant. Includes an old poll of active duty military, and what they would do if ordered to fire on American citizens.
Then: ‘Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America.’
Plus:
“Winter is Coming” by Jim Goulding
“The Fourth Turning” by Strauss and Howe
Two papers by Miller, Butler and Joubert, “The Rise and Fall of Civilizations” and “12,000 Years of Elliot Waves.” Both are online and free.
A storm is coming, kids. It’s going to be a bad one. Best get ready for it.
Concerning the Elite Priest, David Gregory, on gun control. He waved a magazine that was banned by D.C.’s ridiculous antigun laws, in D.C.
If David Gregory isn’t prosecuted, there are two outcomes:
1) Antigun laws against non-violent offenders will not be enforced.
2) That we have an unAmerican two-tier justice system, one for the 1% Nobility, the other for the serfs of the 99%.
The second option will result in the further erosion of the fed govt’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Techno
“maybe they would like the US…….”
What they would “like” is irrelevent–what they DO is natter vs. guns yet live in homes prottected by ARMED security and work in bldgs protected by ARMED security—yet they would deny that self-same security to other.
Besides, unless you read minds how in the heck would you know what they would like?
“Prove it…if its private how would you know?”
Actually a book has been written on the subject–plus, the donations of elected offical are public record here in the States. So you can actually look up how much people give–as an example you can see what Romnay has been paying to charity as opposed to Obama–and for how long.
Long story short–the “evil” Right is generally far more generous than the “we care so much” Lefties.
In terms of “video games” and movies is that you deliberatly POORLY FRAME the argument—that people are suggesting is that violent movies/video games probbaly have SOME negitive effects and as such should be PART of the discussion.
In terms of mental health–you should google the stuff crazy people do in say China–sans guns.
Also illustrative how many times schools shooter ALSO have homemade bombs and/or used or planned to us arson as a weapon.
Once we get rid of the guns—are you going to outlaw gasoline?
Just a little while ago two people were pushed onto the tracks of oncoming trains by (presumably) mentally ill people. And almost all mass shooters are mentally ill.
Its unconscienably (sp) not to address ALL the causitive factors that effect such tragedies. Failure to do so will only result in more horrors.
Techno has admitted that gun bans don’t stop criminals from getting guns.
The Second Amendment … Where’s the Line? “Say Hello To Citizen Drone Warfare” The Right to Bear … Drones? By Washington’s Blog Global Research, December 30, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-second-amendment-wheres-the-line/5317416
Having been bred and educated in LaLa land before moving to Adina Kutniki’s land, I have to agree with Walsh that the over-protection from cradle to grave starting with well-intentioned parents and extending to the overbearing nanny-state has completely backfired, and people there are totally ignorant of what is evil. Children there unfortunately grow up without the ability to discern that. And so it works in the favor of pure evil.
Shortly after emigrating and seeing my pre-school children learn about the reasons for the yearly 2 minute of silence for victims of the Holocaust and for fallen soldiers, I lamented at the time that they were too young. Now I see that I had mistaken. BTW if I try to explain any of this to the rest of my family back in socal there, they think I’m completely nuts.
A reminder of the event which produced a flood of gun threads to this forum
Newtown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJfjqUotCx8
At least 9 shot in Chicago on New Year’s Eve:
How’s that gun control working out for you?
No mention of the race of the shooters/victims, but I can hazard a guess.
Happy New Year, Rahm, good job!
If we are permitted to violate the Constitutional rights of our citizens willy-nilly in the name of creating a risk-free society, we are re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic while there is still time to avoid the iceberg. One group of people constituting 4% of the population commit 50% of all violent crime per the DOJ itself. We need to immediately outlaw black men between the ages of 13-40. It’s for the children!!!
I’ve been wondering…
Some of you want better control and more restrictions on the mentally ill, including locking them up in institutions. Yeah, some mentally ill people are dangerous to begin with. Most of those already get locked up. The laws already on the books are adequate. We don’t need more government and more spending.
Thing is…if the progessives own our education system, including colleges and universities…and if, as we know, most social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists are progressive democrats… Well, they already know, without any doubt, that conservatives are nuts. They even have ‘scientific’ proof that you’re crazy.
My point is, if you’re promoting better control over crazy people, and if most of the shrinks already think you’re crazy, aren’t you, in the end, advocating better control over conservatives? Kinda shootin’ yerselves in the foot by pushing for better control of crazy people, aren’t you? Especially if your ideological enemies get to decide who’s crazy and who isn’t.
Even w/o those considerations, isn’t it better to make sure that everyone can own a gun, w/o any restrictions, so that they can protect themselves against the nutcases?
No gun licensing, permits or regulations. Roll them back. Toss them out with the bathwater.
Shall not be infringed.
That’s your line in the sand. That’s the hill you die on.
Holder Outlines How To Change Public Opinion On Guns
http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/vvy0FSoM-svqBtzyp
Please look at this issue from the perspective of a person who lives outside the law, and you will understand why there are so many illegal guns. We bear ourselves endlessly debating how to control the legal guns, but not one poster has addressed reducing illegal guns. I think we would all agree that statistically the illegal guns account for most of our gun concerns.
If there is an outstanding arrest warrant against you, say for failing to show up for a hearing, or if you work in the drug trade, you cannot call the police if anyone robs or assaults you. You cannot use the courts to enforce an illegal agreement or deal. Other bad guys know this, which marks you as an easy target, especially if they have guns. How do you protect yourself? You get a gun. Can’t pass a background check? Steal or get an illegal gun. For perspective, the Philadelphia Inquirer estimates that there are 70,000 fugitives residing in Philadelphia.
Chances are that you have nothing to loose (other than being caught)if you use the illegal gun, and perhaps you have drug, alcohol or anger management issues. All of these factors do not lead to wise gun use.
The answer? Effective policing with existing gun and other laws. Every state has consistent gun laws within itself. Within each state there are havens where fugitives, crime and illegal guns statistically congregate. These are cities under consistent Democrat control. In those same states there are other communities, under the same laws, which do not have those problems. These are communities under consistent Republican control.
In Philadelphia, “Megan’s Law” profiles are 2-3 years old on the State Police website. In my PA community, they are 3-6 months old. In Phila., parole officers have trouble just finding their parolees. In my community, each parolee must pass an extensive lie detector test every 6 months to stay out of jail. The questions include every type of crime, including gun offenses.
Our serious crimes are 5-10% per100K as compared to Philadelphia. We have fewer repeat offenders, as most learn, in state prison, to avoid Republican-controlled communities, and live instead in Democrat-controlled communities once they get out. The chances of getting caught are less; the chances of being found guilty are less; the chances of getting a long jail sentence are less. (The PA Supreme court has taken over the administration of Phila. courts because of these factors.)
Until you elect Republicans, consistently over time, will you solve the gun and crime issues.
What better way to control a population than to make a substantial portion of law abiding citizens, criminals. Once these former law abiding citizens are arrested , prosecuted, and jailed, total control becomes extremely easy. By the way, how many criminals (those in jail) will have to be released to make room for the former law abiding citizens headed to jail?