twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 36 is the median age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Since you've just stuck your fingers in your ears and announced that you will not permit any data from outside the US to alter your opinion, we'll just have to gather the data domestically. Now that I have a few minutes, to get back to this... I get how it comes off that way, but all I'm really saying is that it seems foolish to throw around stats to compare two areas that are fundamentally different. I have no argument that if we remove guns we'll have significantly lower rates of gun crime and gun murders. That's not really arguable. At this point, that's not a realistic option. You'd have to, at a minimum, get SCOTUS to rule the second amendment doesn't apply to individuals and I suppose you'd argue only well regulated militias, and even then that's not removing guns. I imagine it would severely limit them, but not remove them. That alone would likely have a big impact on the numbers, provided you went through some sort of confiscation process to actually remove the guns. Or you'd need an ammendment/rewriting of the constition. I seriously doubt that's in the cards any time soon, if ever. So until then, the comparison serves no purpose. It's like looking at Finland or Norway's stats on education, poverty, and quality of life, comparing it to ours, and saying we should adopt their policies. It works great for a small country with a somewhat monolithic culture and they deserve props for what they've done, but it would never work in a country with significantly more people and diversity in culture, desire in how to live life, etc. Now if you have a country that allows guns, but goes through rigorous checks and balances to prevent bad people from getting them but also allows for the same 'rights' we treat gun ownership here (as of now), that has significantly less gun crime then that would be worth comparing. I would much prefer the rates in Japan and throughout the UK over what we have. I don't think you can legally do what they do though. If I'm mistaken then please correct me and I'll absolutely reconsider my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 why not compare Wyoming rates to Texas? we have more folk that need killing...or killing themselves to escape the heat and company why is Wyoming lower than England/Wales? http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/86/number_of_gun_homicides/331,336,280 it sure isn't guns per person or a ban add which state has the most guns per capita? http://reverbpress.com/politics/firearms-per-capita-by-state/ the one with the lowest gun homicide rate ....maybe guns aren't the problem Unless I'm missing something, WY is dark in the last figure meaning it has a high death rate to related gun injuries. AK is darker indicating a larger gun death rate, but other than WY is at least as dark as any other state. And your link says: "In other words, there appears to be a strong correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun deaths." (Realistically, when it comes to states like AK and WY I'd be really hesitant to say anything based on one year. Their populations are likely so small a few more deaths probably changes the rates a lot. I'd expect there might be a lot of year-to-year variation in their rates.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 . At this point, that's not a realistic option. Now, you're getting there. For years, those of us on the gun control side have been struggling between pragmatism and defeatism. I mean heck, it's almost impossible for the gun nicks to agree that terrorists shouldn't have as many guns as they want at whatever make and caliber they want. Build a wall, ban Muslims, but by all means make sure everyone with bad intent has uninhibited access to guns and make sure that anyone with mental health problems does too... Just to make sure, let's make it impossible for info to be shared about whether they've diagnosed as a danger to themselves or others. Can't let data like that pop up on a background check. (Okay, you don't deserve that frustration aimed at you, but it's been decades of obstinance, lies, callous prayers after preventable murders.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Unless I'm missing something, WY is dark in the last figure meaning it has a high death rate to related gun injuries. they have a very high gun suicide rate....they obviously don't need assisted suicide the comparison chart was for gun homicides http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/guns-a-way-of-life-in-wyoming/article_f8eb0d5c-d4b4-5881-9091-74656a8ef313.html According to FBI crime statistics, in 2010 there were only eight murders in the state, five of which were committed with guns. That works out to fewer than one gun murder per 100,000 people. By comparison, in California, a state where only about 21 percent of households own guns, 1,257 people were murdered with firearms in 2010, a rate of 3.4 gun homicides per 100,000 people. In other words, while Wyoming may have more guns per person than anywhere else, citizens aren’t using them on one another. Cheyenne Police Chief Brian Kozak acknowledged that fact, pointing out that it may be due in part to Wyoming’s rural character and general lack of the large urban areas where poverty and guns frequently form a deadly mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 That is why I brought up the German model. Either way - what I would like to see is impossible without a new Constitutional Amendment that clarifies the 2nd Amendment. Germany allows for gun licenses for hunting, sport, and collecting - not self-defense. Huge restrictions and enforcement (not even airsoft guns or tasers are allowed or paintball guns). I think the hunting guns allow 2 bullets per magazine. Many other countries enacted these bans in response to the same types of mass killings we've seen (Sandy Hook, Pulse, Virginia Tech). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) they have a very high gun suicide rate....they obviously don't need assisted suicide the comparison chart was for gun homicides http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/guns-a-way-of-life-in-wyoming/article_f8eb0d5c-d4b4-5881-9091-74656a8ef313.html According to FBI crime statistics, in 2010 there were only eight murders in the state, five of which were committed with guns. That works out to fewer than one gun murder per 100,000 people. By comparison, in California, a state where only about 21 percent of households own guns, 1,257 people were murdered with firearms in 2010, a rate of 3.4 gun homicides per 100,000 people. In other words, while Wyoming may have more guns per person than anywhere else, citizens aren’t using them on one another. Cheyenne Police Chief Brian Kozak acknowledged that fact, pointing out that it may be due in part to Wyoming’s rural character and general lack of the large urban areas where poverty and guns frequently form a deadly mix. 1). Don't suppose you've got a link to those statistics? Not really in a trusting mood, right now. 2). But let's assume you're correct. So what? "Well. If we want to cut down on the number of people getting shot, we've got TWO options. We can reduce the number of guns by 90%. Or we can reduce the population of the US by 90%." Edited June 19, 2016 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 1 what is a little known??? culture and race seem relevant or perhaps it is because gun culture begins there very early in age I'm still waiting for a retraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 1 what is a little known??? It's what auto correct does to the word "link". I'm still waiting for a retraction. Yes, you caught me misspelling a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) (Okay, you don't deserve that frustration aimed at you, but it's been decades of obstinance, lies, callous prayers after preventable murders.)I get it. I do. I share the same frustrations you do, I just don't foresee any real ban of guns being viable. I still think the best we can hope for, if you this 'compromise' is needed (which I do to get anything through): Significant increased background check process Some sort of re-up on your abilit to own guns, not just on the purchase end, maybe every 5 years? (Things change... people change... it's not just about the purchase process) Allow the ATF to do its job. Allow them access to the records. Remove barriers to auditing gun dealers. Force gun dealers to keep track of inventory, penalize them for not accounting for ALL weapons. The bigger issue to me is that we cannot, or do not, enforce existing laws well enough. By extension, you can now allow the CDC to do its job. To give the gun people something to get enough on board: National concealed handgun permit. Require *real* qualification for it. Allow it in all 50 states. Something that says 'this is it' for, say, 15 years. No more new gun laws until we see how this works out for a while. Get democrats to back off on strict gun policies in certain states/cities. It's not like they're working anyways. It would be a starting point. In 15 years we could revisit it all and we'd be armed (pun intended) with real data from the ATF and the CDC that would give us something to bat around other than the same old arguments. In the meantime a serious investment in mental health across the board - money for research, facilities, and outreach. And something to change the social stigmas on mental disorders and issues, from this thing we try to run away from and hide to something we are all aware of and actively engaged in. Also general discussions about how our culture has created this monster of mass shootings and what can be done to move in the other directions. Edited June 19, 2016 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Yes, you caught me misspelling a word. or did I catch you using gun deaths in place of gun homicides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 or did I catch you using gun deaths in place of gun homicides? Nope. Read again. I caught YOU posting gun homicides, and pretending it was the gun homicide RATE. Me, I posted the actual, relevant, statistics. And explained where I got them, and provided the link and instructions to get the data. And your response was to call me a liar. And lie some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Funny my link http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/86/number_of_gun_homicides/294,280,297,307,315,319,320,331,286,336,69 clearly says gun homicides at the top of the chart....your link? besides which you clearly starting the accusation of lying...as ****ing usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Way to go, Old-Timer! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Granted he did not stop a "mass shooting", or a "massacre". He stopped an armed robbery. By firing, near as I can tell, six shots. At least five of which were at their backs, as they fled and he chased them. He was the only person to fire. None of his six shots disabled his targets. (Although, reading news articles about it, looks like the robbers received three wounds that didn't disable them). (FWIW, I do think he was justified. At least the first shot. It absolutely was an armed robbery, in progress.) It's just not what it's being advertised as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 How can you know which it is for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 How can you know which it is for sure? The fact that they brought one pistol and a baseball bat. The fact that they didn't start shooting. The fact that they were taking people's wallets. The fact that they ran. (Without firing a shot.) In short, the same way I know that I can't kill you and then say "how does anybody know that you weren't about to become a mass murderer?" At least, not if I have any integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) So you need to wait and observe...how does that work in a mass shooting? Mr integrity add we can go further...a pistol is at least five shots,mass shooting is classified as three I'll grant a bat is not used in most mass shootings....but they brought a gun Edited June 19, 2016 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Probably had one of those 380 bs guns everyone tells you aren't worth a crap. Hit a guy 3 times and he doesn't even seem affected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 In addition to gun control, one needs to practice gun safety. The accidental, unlucky and unfortunate death of someone that spent their life teaching people how to protect themselves did not go unnoticed. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/19/ohio-gun-shop-owner-killed-during-concealed-carry-class.html?intcmp=hpbt4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm all for self defense but that guy probably wasn't in any danger. They wanted money not people's lives. And more importantly, by turning a robbery into a shootout he put the lives of everyone there in danger. Those people got lucky. Good guy with a gun could have caused unnecessary bloodshed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DallasCowboyFan156 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Well it does say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." I imagine he's thinking that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is part of "liberty." This is what I was going to say, but you beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm all for self defense but that guy probably wasn't in any danger. They wanted money not people's lives. And more importantly, by turning a robbery into a shootout he put the lives of everyone there in danger. Those people got lucky. Good guy with a gun could have caused unnecessary bloodshed. blaming the victim eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm all for self defense but that guy probably wasn't in any danger. They wanted money not people's lives. And more importantly, by turning a robbery into a shootout he put the lives of everyone there in danger. Those people got lucky. Good guy with a gun could have caused unnecessary bloodshed. Oh, I think he was justified in using force. That's one reason why I like concealed carry laws. The way I think of it is that, when somebody steps out of an alley and says "gimme your money", the citizen has the right to say "no". And a gun makes his "no" a lot more likely to stick. I don't even have a problem with geezer shooting first. Do I think he saved the lives of everybody there? No. Do I think he prevented an armed robbery? That's obvious. Do I think "preventing an armed robbery" is a good enough reason to fire? Yes. (I don't feel nearly as good about him chasing the guys, and shooting at their backs as they ran. He's not the defender, any more.) This is what I was going to say, but you beat me to it. Ah, a second vote for the notion that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property" means "you can take his car keys, but not his gun". Even though both of them are property. blaming the victim eh? "The only guy in the room who's firing a gun" seems to be a funny definition of the word "victim". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) "The only guy in the room who's firing a gun" seems to be a funny definition of the word "victim". self determination ....using the gun to change status from robbery victim to another add use the rape analogy....would a woman preventing a rape with a gun be termed a attempted rape victim?...or would that be a funny definition Edited June 19, 2016 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts