Jump to content



Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Gun Homicide rates


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#31 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:56 AM

I say we blame food manufactures for selling people food that they eat to stay alive that allows them to obtain and use guns to kill people. If it wasn't for them providing food, people wouldn't be able to use guns to kill people.

Am I following that logic right?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#32 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:10 AM

I say we blame food manufactures for selling people food that they eat to stay alive that allows them to obtain and use guns to kill people. If it wasn't for them providing food, people wouldn't be able to use guns to kill people.

Am I following that logic right?

That actually made me LOL.. I am in a library studying for my test. 



#33 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:19 AM

I'm pretty sure it's a felony with mandatory jail time for selling a gun to a felon. It is actually taken very seriously.
 
http://bangordailyne...chsource=tophat
 
But uh.... where you want to place the blame next?


Dude, you should REALLY read some of those articles in your search query. Hint: Most of them aren't saying what you think they're about. Not to mention that private sellers aren't required to do NICS checks. Also, Bangor, ME isn't Chicago, IL. HTH
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#34 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:00 AM

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

How about meaningless platitudes and pithy sayings? Can you bring those?

Is there any indication that a sizable percentage of the sexual assaults in Sweden are happening at gunpoint?
 

A criminal might also go the route of the black market for anonymity and cost effectiveness.

Where do you think those guns are coming from? Most firearm incidents in the US come from regular civilian style firearms. Someone buying a pistol on the "black market" is just buying a gun that was likely sold legally by the manufacturer to a wholesaler/retailer who then sold it to a legal buyer who then turned around and sold it to God-knows-who. There's multiple places where this chain could have been broken before the "black market".


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#35 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 04:39 PM

How about meaningless platitudes and pithy sayings? Can you bring those?

Is there any indication that a sizable percentage of the sexual assaults in Sweden are happening at gunpoint?

I guess that one went completely over your head. If a robber pulls a pistol in your face, would you take out your knife and show him how shiny it is?

 

Don't know about Sweden. I would think its raw power with the help of another object. Now if these ladies only had guns.. 

 

Where do you think those guns are coming from? Most firearm incidents in the US come from regular civilian style firearms. Someone buying a pistol on the "black market" is just buying a gun that was likely sold legally by the manufacturer to a wholesaler/retailer who then sold it to a legal buyer who then turned around and sold it to God-knows-who. There's multiple places where this chain could have been broken before the "black market".

Ok and I am not denying that these guns could fall in the hands of the criminals. If we ban these gun sales, criminals will find other ways to acquire them. Good citizens on the other hand will be at a disadvantage. Remember guns don't kill people. Its people that kill people. 



#36 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:36 PM

:rofl:

 

:rofl:

 

Please be a joke. Please be a joke. 

 

Not for content, but just...I fuckin' fear for the world if paraphrasing a bumber sticker saying/Chuck Norris idiom is how you think an argument is advanced.

 

Please be a joke.


Posted Image

#37 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:42 PM

I guess that one went completely over your head. If a robber pulls a pistol in your face, would you take out your knife and show him how shiny it is?

This sounds like an excellent reason to curtail the ability of criminals to access firearms. You know, like how most of the industrialized free world does it. 
 

If we ban these gun sales, criminals will find other ways to acquire them. Good citizens on the other hand will be at a disadvantage.

And yet pretty much every other Western-style democracy has managed to keep roving bands of gun-toting criminals off the street despite having considerably more gun regulation than the US.
 

Remember guns don't kill people. Its people that kill people.

Especially people in the United States where firearms are plentiful and attempts to regulate them meet tremendous opposition. Less so in other places where this isn't the case. Funny how that works.

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#38 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:49 PM

This sounds like an excellent reason to curtail the ability of criminals to access firearms. You know, like how most of the industrialized free world does it. 
 

And yet pretty much every other Western-style democracy has managed to keep roving bands of gun-toting criminals off the street despite having considerably more gun regulation than the US.
 

Especially people in the United States where firearms are plentiful and attempts to regulate them meet tremendous opposition. Less so in other places where this isn't the case. Funny how that works.

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"

Culturally speaking we have always been a country drawn to guns. Their significance in our culture can be seen in movies, music, art and everything else under the sun. IMO, the answer is not eliminating gun ownership but more rigid gun control laws and stricter enforcement. NYC has shown that gun laws can work if properly implemented and enforced.  


Xecutioner
CML

#39 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:05 PM

Culturally speaking we have always been a country drawn to guns. Their significance in our culture can be seen in movies, music, art and everything else under the sun. IMO, the answer is not eliminating gun ownership but more rigid gun control laws and stricter enforcement. NYC has shown that gun laws can work if properly implemented and enforced.  

 

I'm not advocating complete elimination or banning.  It is unfortunate that attempts to enact more rigid controls are blocked by the Usual Suspects.

 

I'm more perplexed by the fetishism for "American Exceptionalism" that results in every solution from abroad being met with "That'd never work HERE though!".  You would think that if you see another guy (or a bunch of other guys) excelling in something you're struggling in, the logical course of action would be to observe them and try to emulate what they're doing.  Even if you don't or can't copy them 100%, they certainly have some components you could enact, right?  Yet, in topics such as gun control, healthcare, education, etc there's this massive barrier created by this obsession with the idea that the US has to be "different" and our different solutions must be better and more unique because we're America.  Meanwhile, proven effective solutions just pass right on by because God forbid we admit that some dirty European "socialist" nation is doing it better than us and we could learn from them.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#40 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:24 PM

I'm not advocating complete elimination or banning.  It is unfortunate that attempts to enact more rigid controls are blocked by the Usual Suspects.

 

I'm more perplexed by the fetishism for "American Exceptionalism" that results in every solution from abroad being met with "That'd never work HERE though!".  You would think that if you see another guy (or a bunch of other guys) excelling in something you're struggling in, the logical course of action would be to observe them and try to emulate what they're doing.  Even if you don't or can't copy them 100%, they certainly have some components you could enact, right?  Yet, in topics such as gun control, healthcare, education, etc there's this massive barrier created by this obsession with the idea that the US has to be "different" and our different solutions must be better and more unique because we're America.  Meanwhile, proven effective solutions just pass right on by because God forbid we admit that some dirty European "socialist" nation is doing it better than us and we could learn from them.

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying but "American Exceptionalism" is unequivocally part of our culture.  One could argue it is what brings all of us, folks from different backgrounds, races and cultures, together. It is the quintessential American trait. The old continent has history, both culturally and artistically,  which we cannot match. However, as you stated above we need to be more open minded about how to solve the various issues our country faces today. If nothing else we should be looking at this countries and learning from their mistakes and improving on their solutions.


Xecutioner
CML

#41 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:35 PM

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying but "American Exceptionalism" is unequivocally part of our culture. 

 

It's a part of our culture that's ironically holding us back as we refuse to acknowledge that anyone else could have the answers.  Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive for innovation or whatever -- it's not a binary thing -- but shunning working ideas just because we can't take credit for them is asinine.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#42 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:36 PM

It's a part of our culture that's ironically holding us back as we refuse to acknowledge that anyone else could have the answers.  Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive for innovation or whatever -- it's not a binary thing -- but shunning working ideas just because we can't take credit for them is asinine.

Agreed.


Xecutioner
CML

#43 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:38 PM

This sounds like an excellent reason to curtail the ability of criminals to access firearms. You know, like how most of the industrialized free world does it. 

You fail to see that many of those regulations will not stop the criminals. Your industrialized nations still have a firearm related problem. 

 

And yet pretty much every other Western-style democracy has managed to keep roving bands of gun-toting criminals off the street despite having considerably more gun regulation than the US.

I do not know how else to explain it to you. Obviously gun crime will go down if there are heavy regulations. Violent crime still exists and in some cases surpasses what we have here. 

Here is UK:

http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

 

Especially people in the United States where firearms are plentiful and attempts to regulate them meet tremendous opposition. Less so in other places where this isn't the case. Funny how that works

 

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"

I am extremely pleased that the people in this country love their guns to death. Again coming from a third wold country where guns are mostly prohibited, I can tell that less guns is not a solution to crime. 

 

The answer is not more guns against the bad guys, its far more than that. Notice the difference in crime between states. Its not just about the ownership rate, it has to do with education, culture, wealth and etc. These are the things that the society needs to focus on.

 

Another country that is a great example is Switzerland ( I think it was it). High ownership rate of firearms, yet extremely low homicide rate. So.. Guns=/=Crime



#44 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:08 PM

A page search for "ban" turns up 7 results: 2 in this post of yours I'm quoting, and the other 5 from Syntax Error in his post just above yours (but after mine). Seems I did read closely. Maybe silk or Bob mentioned "bans," but (a) I have them dudes on ignore and (b) they're not arguing for gun control.

It's a shame that you're willing to make up lies in order to avoid admitting that your post was (a) dumb, (b) a straw man, and © wrong.

Keep plugging away at it. Why admit you made an error when you can double down on dumb-fuckery?

Sad. Sad, sad, sad.


What was my error? Asking if anyone was in support of a gun ban? Guess what , genius, some people are. You seem very pissy all the time. Is it possible that I could be lucky enough to make your ignore list like Silk and Bob? You do make me laugh though, so carry on. I think I saw you respond to Bob in the other thread. I have me never put someone on ignore, is it selective as to what you see?

#45 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:21 PM

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"


Sounds like Education spending, the Bush/Obama stimulus, and Welfare spending debates as well. "Spending money didn't fix it! We need more spending!"
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#46 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:22 PM

Sounds like Education spending, the Bush/Obama stimulus, and Welfare spending debates as well. "Spending money didn't fix it! We need more spending!"

Save for the fact that those are all things which benefit people whereas guns kill them.


PaulManda.png


#47 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:43 PM

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. :D
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#48 Jruth

Jruth

    No trite shit crew gamer bro

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:45 PM

I am of the mind that if the second amendment was never conceived there would be less gun murders. However strangely I also believe more guns equals less crime. If you're going to have guns legal at all, than you don't want an unflagging select few with them. You simply can't take the guns; the carnage, the money, the effort to do that is astronomical. So, friends of the left - would a crusade for the safety of African-American youths in Chicago prove to be a more laudable effort? When the majority of homicides in the U.S are black on black.

 

 

 

Lets look to other examples of government banning things formally legal for some time like alcohol. We know how it worked out. Why are these pro-weed legalization liberals trying to ban things?

 

 

 

And also I'm tired of liberals rager for swedes. It's a make believe country who's claim to fame is shitty furniture and meatballs.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#49 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:58 PM

What was my error? Asking if anyone was in support of a gun ban? Guess what , genius, some people are. You seem very pissy all the time. Is it possible that I could be lucky enough to make your ignore list like Silk and Bob? You do make me laugh though, so carry on. I think I saw you respond to Bob in the other thread. I have me never put someone on ignore, is it selective as to what you see?

hahahaha. "some people are" is quite a shimmy away from what you said earlier. You said people were saying "ban," and nobody did. Now you're shifting to a more amorphous "some people are," because you lack the spine to own that you were wrong. You *asked* if you committed an error, when it's plain as day. You can't acknowledge that you, intentionally or not, threw down a monumentally stupid straw man as a way of trying to make your case.

 

As for responding to Bob, you know how you might poke at a sore tooth every now and then, curious to see if it's still sore? Yeah, pretty much like that. You see that they posted, and you can click on individual posts to view them, a la carte style. But by default they are hidden.


Posted Image

#50 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:31 AM

You fail to see that many of those regulations will not stop the criminals. Your industrialized nations still have a firearm related problem.

Do they? If they do, it's a much much smaller one than the US has.
 

I do not know how else to explain it to you. Obviously gun crime will go down if there are heavy regulations. Violent crime still exists and in some cases surpasses what we have here.

I'm not sure where this strawman keeps coming from. No one is arguing that gun control will result in a 100% reduction of violent crimes. You brought up the UK though. The homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000. In the US, it's 4.7 per 100,000. Claiming that there'll still be robberies or something really doesn't resonate against a 75% drop in the homicide rate. You know what robbery victims still get to do that homicide victims don't? Be alive.
 

I am extremely pleased that the people in this country love their guns to death. Again coming from a third wold country where guns are mostly prohibited, I can tell that less guns is not a solution to crime.

That's nice. My wife is from Peru. My brother-in-law was nearly abducted by the Shining Path when he was twelve. You know what no one from that family says? "Boy, we sure do need more guns". Regardless of your personal opinion, the data bears out that less guns is certainly a positive indicator towards a lower homicide rate in industrialized democracies. Let's say that again: Homicide rate. Just like the thread title says.  Not "But people will still get beat up so we must need guns!" but homicide rate.
 

Another country that is a great example is Switzerland ( I think it was it). High ownership rate of firearms, yet extremely low homicide rate. So.. Guns=/=Crime

High ownership rate, sure. Also tremendously more regulated than the US. But, again, the Usual Suspects go ape irate if you imply that we should have national mandatory firearm registration, required gun permits and registration for private individual sales, strict requirements on who may carry guns in public, etc -- all things in Switzerland. If you're going to hold up Switzerland as a model, you should be demanding that we follow their lead in something beyond "Lots of guns!"


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#51 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:50 AM

Do they? If they do, it's a much much smaller one than the US has.

Depends if you consider homicide a problem. 

 

I'm not sure where this strawman keeps coming from. No one is arguing that gun control will result in a 100% reduction of violent crimes. You brought up the UK though. The homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000. In the US, it's 4.7 per 100,000. Claiming that there'll still be robberies or something really doesn't resonate against a 75% drop in the homicide rate. You know what robbery victims still get to do that homicide victims don't? Be alive.

You are talking about these regulations keeping "gun-toting" criminals off the street. I say otherwise. They will continue to be there in some form or another. A robbery victim is less likely to be a victim if he pulls a gun on a perpetrator. 60% of the time, it works every time. 

 

 

That's nice. My wife is from Peru. My brother-in-law was nearly abducted by the Shining Path when he was twelve. You know what no one from that family says? "Boy, we sure do need more guns". Regardless of your personal opinion, the data bears out that less guns is certainly a positive indicator towards a lower homicide rate in industrialized democracies. Let's say that again: Homicide rate. Just like the thread title says.  Not "But people will still get beat up so we must need guns!" but homicide rate.

Sucks for your brother law. I do not know why you bring him up as an example, its as if your implying the 12 year old should have had a gun. Your data is correct in suggesting that less guns in circulation would usually mean less homicides. I never denied that. As a matter of fact I said that several times. You know if we restricted knifes, we would have less knife related homicides. Scientists confirm that. 

 

High ownership rate, sure. Also tremendously more regulated than the US. But, again, the Usual Suspects go ape irate if you imply that we should have national mandatory firearm registration, required gun permits and registration for private individual sales, strict requirements on who may carry guns in public, etc -- all things in Switzerland. If you're going to hold up Switzerland as a model, you should be demanding that we follow their lead in something beyond "Lots of guns!"

Again these things would not do much to stop it if people themselves are corrupt. You think some criminal punk gives a shit about your registration or permits? If you do, well then I got a bridge to sell you. 

 

Also again remember the 2nd amendment. This is why people are sensitive when liberals try to restrict the gun sales and ownership. 



#52 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 February 2014 - 05:43 AM

Depends if you consider homicide a problem.

I do, so sure. 
 

You are talking about these regulations keeping "gun-toting" criminals off the street. I say otherwise.

Data doesn't back it up.
 

Sucks for your brother law. I do not know why you bring him up as an example

Illustrating that personal anecdotes are great and all but they're not data.
 

Again these things would not do much to stop it if people themselves are corrupt.

Unless the US has a corner on "corrupt people" the data suggests that they do work. Which seems more important than people saying "Nuh uh! 'Cause they'll all get guns anyway".


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#53 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:49 PM

I've seen the argument several times that the tighter gun control laws in places like Chicago, DC, etc. don't work because guns can just easily be gotten in nearby areas where there aren't tighter gun control laws...

Let's say we completely banned the private sale and ownership of firearms (I know, I know, no one here is really arguing for that...) - with as freely as firearms (and drugs... and people...) cross the Mexican border, would it really do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of those who would use them to do bad things?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#54 kill3r7

kill3r7

    MiNd ThE GaP

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 February 2014 - 05:23 PM

I've seen the argument several times that the tighter gun control laws in places like Chicago, DC, etc. don't work because guns can just easily be gotten in nearby areas where there aren't tighter gun control laws...

Let's say we completely banned the private sale and ownership of firearms (I know, I know, no one here is really arguing for that...) - with as freely as firearms (and drugs... and people...) cross the Mexican border, would it really do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of those who would use them to do bad things?

No one is suggesting a complete ban so why waste our time talking about it? You are correct that folks who want to get a gun will be able to do so through illegal means as has been the case time immemorial.

 

Chicago and DC have major socioeconomic problems that contribute the the high murder rate by firearms. The powers to be in those cities wanted to find a way to get guns off the street but more importantly make gun possession outside of your home a felony carrying a lengthy jail sentence. Thus, the ADA wouldn't have to prove a case against one of the "bad" guys you allude to above. If they are caught with a gun on them, they are going to jail. As a counterpoint to Chicago and DC one only need to look at NYC to see that gun regulations can work. Granted it is only one of the factors that contributed to the turnaround. The increase in police presence, a major influx of money and gentrification certainly were major factors as well. 

 

CAVEAT: There is no denying that NYC has become a "bit" of a police state for people of certain a race or ethnicity but the results are hard to argue with. Change is coming on that front as we speak. De Blasio is now focusing on remedying some of these shortcomings to make the city a better place for all.   


Xecutioner
CML

#55 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:33 PM

Let's say we completely banned the private sale and ownership of firearms (I know, I know, no one here is really arguing for that...) - with as freely as firearms (and drugs... and people...) cross the Mexican border, would it really do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of those who would use them to do bad things?

 

Sure.  Be easier to prosecute, be easier to determine if a gun is illegally owned (because they all are), be more difficult to transport since you couldn't throw it into your trunk with the WalMart receipt, all sorts of things.  Wouldn't be an immediate effect but, again, lots of nations have tight gun regulations and aren't plagued with gangs of illegal gun-wielding hoodlums roaming the streets.  I suppose that could be because they all decided "We just don't like guns" but I have a suspicion that the lack of easy availability and legal ramifications play a pretty good role.

 

Consider, for instance, more military grade weaponry.  Go to the Middle East and north Africa and it's awash with AK-47s, RPGs and stuff like that.  Do we have a fully automatic rifle problem in the US?  Not really; certainly not compared to semi-automatics or revolvers.  If you were some gang guy who wanted to really teach a lesson to some other gang, wouldn't an RPG into their home be a great way to do it rather than shooting with a pistol?  But you don't hear of many inner city RPG attacks, do you?  Or people throwing hand grenades?  Do you think this is because they just have some moral objection to rocket propelled grenades or because laws against their importation and ownership make it impractical?  There's no lack of RPGs in the world, they just aren't coming into the US in any great quantity (note I'm not saying none/never just the rarity). 


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#56 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 March 2014 - 04:31 AM

Data doesn't back it up.

Actually it does. The rate of criminals is not tied to the rate of firearm circulation.

 

Illustrating that personal anecdotes are great and all but they're not data.

Yet they do provide a good insight, like they did in both of our cases. 

 

Unless the US has a corner on "corrupt people" the data suggests that they do work. Which seems more important than people saying "Nuh uh! 'Cause they'll all get guns anyway".

I think you miss the picture. If a criminal needs a firearm and has the means to acquire it, then he will. Like I said before, these criminals do not just magically disappear. Violent crime still persists and therefore the root of the problems lies somewhere else. 



#57 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 March 2014 - 04:40 AM

Actually it does. The rate of criminals is not tied to the rate of firearm circulation.

The rate of "gun-toting" criminals certainly is.

If a criminal needs a firearm and has the means to acquire it, then he will

Excellent reason to restrict the means of acquisition as much as possible.  Glad we agree.

Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#58 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 March 2014 - 05:47 AM

Excellent reason to restrict the means of acquisition as much as possible.  Glad we agree.

As much as possible would mean a complete ban. Is that what you are advocating?



#59 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 March 2014 - 07:27 AM

Nah, I've already pointed to other nations who don't have complete bans as potential models.  I'll admit that you can play all sorts of games with "But you said as much as possible!" though.  This is just a web forum though; I'm not trying to nail down exact policy or write legislation here.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#60 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 March 2014 - 02:29 PM

CAVEAT: There is no denying that NYC has become a "bit" of a police state for people of certain a race or ethnicity but the results are hard to argue with.

Numerically, perhaps. I'm not sure that they pass ethical/constitutional litmus tests, given the very, very, very disproportionate racial impact of (for one thing) stop and frisk.

 

Speaking of NYC, I always wondered about the economic renovation of Times Square (from seedy vice district to family friendly theme park) and how much that has impacted crime rates. Certainly the gentrification of Brooklyn is moving crime from out of there to wherever folks are being displaced to. But that's a whole other conversation.


Posted Image