musterion
Well-known member
As common sense dictates, even for thugs. If there's even a 50/50 you're CC, I'm going to go pick a less likely victim.
Oregon Community College Shooting - What law (if any) could have prevented it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
As common sense dictates, even for thugs. If there's even a 50/50 you're CC, I'm going to go pick a less likely victim.
You know, it really is as simple as that. Think like a criminal, that's what cops/LE are trained to do. Citizens have to do it unfortunately. When the percentage of CC goes up, crime must go down, it's a fact.
Lon
Well-known member
A law that restricts media from irresponsible reporting. Not a limit on free-speech, but allowing lawful accountability on 'irresponsible' free-speech. If we were able to sue the news media as being partly responsible for glorifying criminals, which encourages further criminal activity, we might see a LOT less.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Your graph used a natural log rather than linear relationship. That isn't the normal way of testing for correlation. It seems like whoever made it was trying to confuse the issue. And why do you think suicides should be removed? Do you think it's good to make it easier for someone to commit suicide?
Jesus also said those who live by the sword will die by the sword and that was specifically as a rebuke to Peter trying to use a weapon to defend Jesus. I'm pretty sure that can be applied to guns.
Alate_One
Well-known member
The absolute number of guns isn't the whole picture. The number of *households* with guns has been declining for some time. There's also the issue that the population has increased from 263 million to 318 million in the same time period.
There's a difference between the collector with dozens of guns and how many households have a handgun.
And yes violent crime has been decreasing in the united states overall for some time. This is likely due to quite a number of factors, some cite legalization of abortion, others cite the removal of lead in gasoline. I favor the latter.
Alate_One
Well-known member
There's no evidence of that. And I'm guessing you didn't read the article I linked. Your "statistics" are based on people's self reports to interviewers of using guns for "self defense".
This source specifically rebukes the articles yours cites.
| In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible. |
Dan Emanuel
Active member
What law could have prevented it?
--Amendment to the Constitution repealing or amending the Second Amendment.
--Statutory weapon's training (e.g., mandatory military service).
--Raise the minimum age. Make it 35, like being President, or 30 or something. They weren't saying that my six year-olds' right to keep and bear arm's shall not be infringed. "The right to be President shall not be infringed. But its not a right that a 34-year old has yet."
What law's don't work already?
--"Gun free zone's."
--Outlawing or regulating mind-altering drug's.
--Stripping ex-convict's of there R.K.B.A.
--Effectively outlawing machine gun's.
--NOT enacting C.C.W. reciprocity requirement nationwide, like drivers and marriage license's.
They're are a ton of other's that already don't work too, these are just a few of them.
DJ
1.1
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Spoiler
DJ
1.0
exminister
Well-known member
Dan,
Please show source of your graph.
Please show source of your graph.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
It occurs to me ... and I may be wrong but gun crime in America today is many times worse than it was in the days of Billy the kid....always the targets are soft.
I believe people should be unarmed but I do not think it is logistically possible to disarm America now....but really look at the range of weaponry being used, it is galling to think of the gun manufacturors profiting hand over fist.
I believe people should be unarmed but I do not think it is logistically possible to disarm America now....but really look at the range of weaponry being used, it is galling to think of the gun manufacturors profiting hand over fist.
musterion
Well-known member
Not that yours or Manc's disarmed opinion counts on this, but which people? Law abiding citizens? Criminals? Both?
musterion
Well-known member
Huckleberry
New member
The "article" I referenced is from the CDC and all the information is right there in the post.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Your source was not the CDC but "Just facts.com" (you copy pasted) which cited the CDC report which cited the paper (Kleck and Gertz (1995)) in question and the original report noted that the estimate of DGUs in said paper was an order of magnitude larger than estimates from other sources.
PureX
Well-known member
The problem is simple: guns are far too easy for the people who should not have them, to get. So we need to find ways of determining who should not have them, and of effectively limiting their access to them. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but we can do it far more effectively than we are doing it, now. The more immediate problem, however, is that our whole society has lost it's sense of reason in the firestorm of political partisanship that the media and corporate sponsored politicians are constantly stirring up. We can't address this problem sensibly because we have lost all sense of reason and proportion both politically and socially. In effect, we are out of control, as a nation. And it's only going to get worse until we finally stop letting ourselves be driven to complete irrationality by this deliberate onslaught of divisive, hyperbolic propaganda.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Comparing countries is a little like comparing apples to oranges. Countries have far more differences than simply the number of guns. Some have relatively weak central governments and massive organized crime problems. Organized crime means a few people with guns kill a lot of people, and that's generally what you see in your chart. Countries that have that problem have much higher gun deaths than the USA, but that's hardly surprising.
It's also telling that these graphs intentionally exclude suicide. Comparing states is a bit more apples to apples since the USA has relatively similar culture across states.
If we want to compare countries that are at least somewhat similar to the USA in terms of human development you get this:
If you're intent on excluding suicide from a debate like this, why? Are those lives less meaningful than anyone else's?
jeffblue101
New member
no one has said that, instead what I provided was a graph that showed in the case of suicide it is not in the least bit affected by gun ownership rates, Quite literally almost all those gun restrictive countries have suicides rates higher than the total US homicide rate. hence the phrase we need Jesus not gun control.