High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[HenryReardon]

." What actually is happening is that stupid people are failing to examine the root causes of crime. They blame firearms because it is easy. .

There's a very good reason for that. In order to seriously examine - and deal with - the root causes of crime, it would be necessary to make a great many non-pc decisions and take a few actions that are definitely not politically correct.

 

[Rolyo85]

Who is the "we" in "We don't want them."? I hope you are not purporting to speak for a "the people". Few are saying they want to take all guns away. We Americans, by a large majority, have always wanted to retain the right to bear arms.

Clearly, I was talking about my own country. Now tell me what's strange in this sentence:

"We Americans, by a large majority, have always wanted to retain marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race".

 

[Rolyo85]

More nonsense. Please provide proof that guns are capable of doing anything - unless a violent human being is holding them.

I am not going to waste my time providing more of the same proof you've been ignoring ever since gun violence became a hot topic here months ago. If you are not aware of the psychological impact that the free availability of a gun has, then clearly we see the world too differently for communication to yield any results.

 

[Rolyo85]

If "your" country is such a utopian paradise, why are you here wasting valuable space in mine?

Because your country can do with more of me and less of you. Also, because gun violence happens to not be the ONLY aspect of any relevance when choosing a place to live.

Also, every time some douchenozzle is given an example with somebody's home country and responds with "then gtfo and go back there", I report them. It's xenophobic and an attempt at intimidation. "I deserve to be here, you don't."

 

[Rolyo85]

Frankly, I don't know why you even bothered posting. You repeated old and debunked arguments, and added nothing new to the discussion. That's time neither you, nor those of us who read your post will ever get back...

There is a study linked in the article. www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonnano_etal.pdf

No, individual with child-like abilities in logic, it does not. Crime rates are generally lower prior to changes in firearms laws. New York and California have seen decreases in crime prior to weapons laws went into effect. There has been a consistent decline in crime since the 1990s. Not because of less guns either. The majority of people are committing less crimes (theories abound, but the reasons are unknown).

Other places have seen no effect from firearms laws. The District of Columbia and Chicago are examples there. Why? Because the relationship between crime and firearms laws is tenuous at best. Firearms are durable. They last a long time. Law does little to change that. Weapons will always be available. People who want them will be able to get them. People looking to engage in criminal activity just ignore law. People working in the market for illegal substances need firearms as they have no court protection for contracts.

As an aside, I have a magic stick that prevents tornadoes. There has never been a tornado near me. I will sell it to you--guy who has never taken a course in statistics and clearly is lacking in an ability to understand causation--for US$1 million.

Do a bit of reading. Look at peer reviewed journals about Japanese culture and reporting of rape and sexual assault specifically. enough has been written about it. Suicide is also seen as responsible in Japan. See "inseki-jisatsu." different culture. Different views.'

The problem here is that you do not understand math. It is not unexpected, but it prevents any actual examination of facts.

Not quite.

What firearms are is effective. They do not cause anything. Fatality rates are higher with firearms than other weapons. Again, most murders are unplanned. Using a firearm is somewhat easier than using other weapons, so people who are shot are more likely to die. But violence is inherent in the species. And other species as well. Primates kill. A lot. Infanticide, murder, and war-like acts of aggression to take over territory are seen in chimpanzees.

What actually is happening is that stupid people are failing to examine the root causes of crime. They blame firearms because it is easy. Liberals are just as bad at math and science as conservatives. That is a very American quality.

 

[Rolyo85]

There's a very good reason for that. In order to seriously examine - and deal with - the root causes of crime, it would be necessary to make a great many non-pc decisions and take a few actions that are definitely not politically correct.

Please, make your racism and xenophobia plain, don't hide behind ambiguity. We all know what you mean, be a man and say it directly.

 

[itsmejeff]

Debunked? Keep repeating that nonsense to yourself. It cool. You keep the emotion. I will stick with science and reason. You would not like them. they are determined by witchcraft like evidence and testing.

What is apparent here is that you hate math because you do not understand it. You are too simple to understand the complexities of human behavior as well. Plus you are tremendously anti-human in your opinions (you deny human ingenuity and tendencies toward aggressive behavior). Whatever. That is fine. The world is built for the ignorant now. Technology allows the dumb to survive quite well.

That does not change facts. European (violent) crime is increasing while American (violent) crime is decreasing (small thefts are up because of a greater number of targets; for example, many people have valuable smart phones). Murders are down everywhere though (partly due to improvements in medicine; partly because of various other reasons). That is just the nature of civilized society. Crime rates dropped in the vast majority of societies before gun laws changed. Even murder, which the media presents as being out of control, is down. Your odds are being murdered are tiny. Odds of being killed by a stranger in some public mass killing (or even a regular killing by a stranger) are really low (age, location, sex, and other factors play into the numbers). People fear the wrong things. Partly because they--like you--are so bad at math, but also because the media does a great job of sensationalizing stories.

If the nonsense you claim is "truth" was true, then the city of Chicago--the dying dump of a city that you call home (according to listed location)--would not be one the murderingest of all US cities. It is worse because Chicago is not culturally southern. You cannot blame southern history and cultural influence as the fault of Chicago violence.

There is a saying about arguing and the internet and retards, so I do not see the point of engaging any further with one.

Please, make your racism and xenophobia plain, don't hide behind ambiguity. We all know what you mean, be a man and say it directly.

What "racism" and xenophobia. Poor young males are the most likely to be killed or kill. Violence in general is a male thing (causes are likely biological and cultural). Higher rates of abortions in the US are believed to have reduced crime. Correcting pregnancy, in cases where the child would be raised in poverty with few opportunities, is believed to result in a reduction of crime in the future. It is not a "race" thing. The difference is really that people who are "race"-ed are more likely to be poor. "Black" and "hispanic" (which is not even a "race") persons are more likely to live in poverty. Both "groups" see higher TFRs as well (so much poor children, many of whom become poor young males that commit crimes.)

 

[xbuzzerx]

Even murder, which the media presents as being out of control, is down. Your odds are being murdered are tiny. Odds of being killed by a stranger in some public mass killing (or even a regular killing by a stranger) are really low (age, location, sex, and other factors play into the numbers). People fear the wrong things. Partly because they--like you--are so bad at math, but also because the media does a great job of sensationalizing stories.

Why do we insist on very high standards of commercial airliner maintenance? Look at your chances of dying in one.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I'd like to ask at this point, how many of those, responsible for shooting sprees in the last decade were criminals? Before the attacks i mean. Its blatantly obvious that addressing the causes of crime is only gonna lower the death toll. Its not going to bring an end to shooting sprees.

That's an extremely good point. These public sprees are not "criminals who just got out of jail and went on a rampage." They were, more or less, "ordinary law abiding people who had guns, had access to guns, or were able to legally purchase guns" up until the moment they went on their rampage.

In that sense ranting about crime rates in general is in a sense irrelevant to the specific type of crime that has the gun control issue back in the public eye.

 

[HenryReardon]

Why do we insist on very high standards of commercial airliner maintenance? Look at your chances of dying in one.

Yeah. Let's just ban airplanes. After all, it's well known that airplanes kill people.

 

[HenryReardon]

I report them. ."

Report away to your heart's content. It only makes you look more childish.

 

[HenryReardon]

And as Corny said... some posts here are full of logical fallacies and this is just another one. Nice slippery slope fallacy. It's the same right wing religious fundamentalists use against gay people.

If banning airplanes because they kill people is a logical fallacy, then so is banning guns for the same reason.

Guns (and airplanes, for that matter) don't kill people. They have to be wielded (or piloted) by a human being to make that happen.
To whine and bleat about guns killing people is as stupid and pointless as stating that pencils make mistakes

 

[itsmejeff]

I'd like to ask at this point, how many of those, responsible for shooting sprees in the last decade were criminals? Before the attacks i mean. Its blatantly obvious that addressing the causes of crime is only gonna lower the death toll. Its not going to bring an end to shooting sprees.

None to very few. Mass shootings are not a rational crime. There is no real gain in them. Not exactly a place for the career criminal. they are mostly middle-to-upper class male "whities" with no criminal record (which is the opposite of regular murders, where is mostly people with criminal records). But it is hard to draw any real conclusions due to the rarity of the crimes.

How exactly does this matter is the real query. The problem with mass killings, many terrorist acts, and other notable violent acts is that they are not predictable. People who are perceived as normal or normal enough end up doing really heinous things. Not like crazy things though. All cases require significant planning and forethought.

This is why stupid people go the ban certain weapons angle. They believe that they can stop violence by removing tools. As though humans cannot create new tools. The 9/11 gentlemen killed thousands with basic blades and aircraft. humans are smart that way. Tool use is a major factor in the species' success.

Why do we insist on very high standards of commercial airliner maintenance? Look at your chances of dying in one.

What is funny, child, is that airline accidents are another area where emotion trumps statistics. Fatal airline incidents are exceedingly rare. ACRO puts fatalities from 1918-2011 at 129'362 (http://www.baaa-acro.com/Liste des deces par annee.htm). Yet people still fear flying. Automobiles have a higher likelihood of fatal incidents, but few think twice about getting in a car.

Firearm homicides were 8583 in 2011. That is a very smell number. Compare it with other causes of death in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf; ignore if you hate math--you probably do as location is in the US). Twice as many people die from suicide with firearms. About four times as many die from all methods of suicide. The overwhelming majority of firearm homicides involve handguns. Rifles and shotguns ("assault" or not) are rarely used in homicides.

 

[itsmejeff]

a boatload of ignorance all contained in one post

History tells another story. Crime increased during the 1980s (coke bears a lot of the blame there). It peaked and then decreased. The 1990s were a period of lower crime rates. Was it gun laws that did it? Nope. Gun laws changed after crime was already decreasing. The laws that went into effect were also of questionable benefit.

I like the appeal to authority as well. You are an expert now, huh?

Laws are not being effectively enforced because it is too difficult to prevent people from getting things that they want. Not just guns either. If you want it, there is someone willing to supply it. Not just normals either. Police have been involved in illegal weapons sales (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/junkie-pleads-guilty-stealing-guns-article-1.1189430). How do laws get enforced when the police are willing to violate them?

This country obviously needs stronger gun control laws, and uniform ones too nationwide.

Obviously? Based upon what? What laws would have an actual effect on reducing crime and increasing safety? How would those best be established and enforced?

Of course, you do not know. You base everything on emotion.

People who benefit from criminal activity will still commit crime. People who want to kill will still do it. That is life. The best solutions are those which would be workable and improve public safety. Stupid people--which are mostly liberals for this issue--fail to understand that. They believe that there is a magic wand that will make them safe and change human behavior.

 

[HenryReardon]

Thanks for the continued use of a logical fallacy.
, .

There is no logical fallacy in a basic truth. Conduct your own scientific test.
Put a loaded gun on a shelf.
Watch it carefully 24/7 for as many decades as you wish.
I promise you that gun will never get up off of that shelf on its own and kill anybody.
It simply isn't possible for a gun to do that.

Basic truths always deflate liberal arguments. Always.

 

[Rolyo85]

If banning airplanes because they kill people is a logical fallacy, then so is banning guns for the same reason.

Guns (and airplanes, for that matter) don't kill people. They have to be wielded (or piloted) by a human being to make that happen.
To whine and bleat about guns killing people is as stupid and pointless as stating that pencils make mistakes

I love how quick conservatives are to compare vehicles to tools designed for killing when they wanna make some idiotic moon-touched argument about "guns don't kill people", conveniently ignoring the "yes, people WITH GUNS kill people" response as if that will make it go away.

 

[xbuzzerx]

None to very few. Mass shootings are not a rational crime.

This is precisely why talking about overall crime rates has virtually nothing to do with these senseless mass killing sprees.

They are purely a function of mental health and loose access to firearms.

That's why all this talk about crime rates going up or down in this region vs. that region have almost no bearing on the U.S. public mass shooting spree issue.

 

[Rolyo85]

Itsmejohn, let me give you an unfriendly piece of advice: I have no idea where you came from, or if this profile is just somebody else's mouthpiece (mods have ways of figuring this out), but with those direct insults and uncovered offensive comments, you will not survive the month in this sub forum. CE&P holds to higher standards than that and personal insults are not tolerated. For your own sake, stick to the opinions and stop throwing in snide remarks and labels of the posters. Whatever jihad you think you're on, every time you address Giancarlo with some name calling angry nerd style, you're losing miles of ground.

 

[HenryReardon]

- - - Updated - - -



Oh yes, now he says "conduct your own scientific test" when his own arguments are completely unscientific. Nobody was talking about putting a loaded gun on a shelf, ...

You have been stating that guns kill people when demonsrably they do not.
If you don't believe it, then conduct the experiment.

 

[Rolyo85]

You have been stating that guns kill people when demonsrably they do not.

You have been stating that guns kill people when demonsrably they do not.

when demonsrably they do not.

WHEN DEMONSTRABLY THEY DO NOT.

Now I've definitely seen it all. But just a few posts from now he'll explain that what he actually meant was that guns BY THEMSELVES don't kill people, as if that is somehow even remotely relevant...