Another U.S. Shooting - This time in the Hood

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think cultural issues are driving a lot of that, as seen in posts above.

Is your argument that these cultural issues only exist in these bad neighbourhoods?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I think cultural issues are driving a lot of that, as seen in posts above.

Is your argument that these cultural issues only exist in these bad neighbourhoods?

No - but I believe it may be more prevalent there.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No - but I believe it may be more prevalent there.

Then why continue to sell guns if you believe your culture to be such that more guns will result in more gun crime?

If you stop selling guns, over time less guns will be in circulation. The price for illegal guns will skyrocket, allowing less criminals to be able to acquire them. According to some of your own reasoning, wouldn't gun crime go down?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

No - but I believe it may be more prevalent there.

Then why continue to sell Drugsguns if you believe your culture to be such that more Drugsgunswill result in more Drugsguns crime?

If you stop selling Drugsguns, over time less Drugsguns will be in circulation. The price for illegal Drugsguns will skyrocket, allowing less criminals to be able to acquire them. According to some of your own reasoning, wouldn't Drugsguns crime go down?

Gee, I bet that will work

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No - but I believe it may be more prevalent there.

Then why continue to sell Drugsguns if you believe your culture to be such that more Drugsgunswill result in more Drugsguns crime?

If you stop selling Drugsguns, over time less Drugsguns will be in circulation. The price for illegal Drugsguns will skyrocket, allowing less criminals to be able to acquire them. According to some of your own reasoning, wouldn't Drugsguns crime go down?

Gee, I bet that will work

Changing the subject when you have no answers?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Apples and Oranges. Unless you are implying that the use of guns is addictive and once you have killed, you want to continue killing?

The problem is every time I want to have a decent and somewhat objective discussion about this.....something silly like this happens.

[mnealtx 0]

Prohibition didn't work with alcohol.

The war on drugs is a dismal failure (as, I believe, you yourself have said).

But you believe that because the subject is guns instead of booze/drugs that it'll somehow work, THIS time?

Someone is living in a fantasy world...but I don't think it's me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Apples and Oranges. Unless you are implying that the use of guns is addictive and once you have killed, you want to continue killing?

The problem is every time I want to have a decent and somewhat objective discussion about this.....something silly like this happens.

Hardly objective when your sole view of guns is tied to killing, as you illustrate above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

I see your imagination has failed you.

Or you are obviously and purposefully, missing the point.

You choose

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hardly objective when your sole view of guns is tied to killing, as you illustrate above.

Not at all. No issue at all with hunting or sport shooting. But we were discussing, well at least I was trying to, the arguments behind the gun ownership. More specifically that supposedly people would be less inclined to commit a crime if they thought somebody might have a gun. By your own admission that might not be entirely true.

So, does that have any bearing on the gun debate, or is it just an unfortunate side-effect of the 2nd Amendmend?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hunting and Sport Shooting have nothing to do with the Second Amendment, which is about self defense, and coming to the aid of your countrymen.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Hardly objective when your sole view of guns is tied to killing, as you illustrate above.

Not at all. No issue at all with hunting or sport shooting. But we were discussing, well at least I was trying to, the arguments behind the gun ownership. More specifically that supposedly people would be less inclined to commit a crime if they thought somebody might have a gun. By your own admission that might not be entirely true.

So, does that have any bearing on the gun debate, or is it just an unfortunate side-effect of the 2nd Amendmend?

I personally believe that it *is* true, as a generality. Where I see that generalization break down is with societal/cultural issues (or what I believe are societal/cultural issues), such as gang violence and the drug culture.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hunting and Sport Shooting have nothing to do with the Second Amendment, which is about self defense, and coming to the aid of your countrymen.

Agreed that there is no correlation between the two. And if the statement is: The 2nd amendmend is the 2nd amendmend and anything negative that flows from that is an unfortunate side effect, then there isn't a whole lot to discuss.

However, earlier in this thread we were talking about the argument that criminals tend to think twice if they know or think a gun might be owned by the victim. That argument doesn't really seem to be holding any water when you look at "bad neighbourhoods" or to a degree when you look at the US as a whole.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Hunting and Sport Shooting have nothing to do with the Second Amendment, which is about self defense, and coming to the aid of your countrymen.

Agreed that there is no correlation between the two. And if the statement is: The 2nd amendmend is the 2nd amendmend and anything negative that flows from that is an unfortunate side effect, then there isn't a whole lot to discuss.

However, earlier in this thread we were talking about the argument that criminals tend to think twice if they know or think a gun might be owned by the victim. That argument doesn't really seem to be holding any water when you look at "bad neighbourhoods" or to a degree when you look at the US as a whole.

Those making that argument don't seem to appreciate that there might be a disconnect between what criminals claim and what actually is the truth.

All the data, from various methodologies, indicates a strong positive correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Where I see that generalization break down is with societal/cultural issues (or what I believe are societal/cultural issues), such as gang violence and the drug culture.

The way I read that is that gun ownership may possibly stop some crimes. However, it aides one of the largest causes of crimes.....organized crime in the form of gangs and drugs.

Is that a worthwhile trade off?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hunting and Sport Shooting have nothing to do with the Second Amendment, which is about self defense, and coming to the aid of your countrymen.

Agreed that there is no correlation between the two. And if the statement is: The 2nd amendmend is the 2nd amendmend and anything negative that flows from that is an unfortunate side effect, then there isn't a whole lot to discuss.

However, earlier in this thread we were talking about the argument that criminals tend to think twice if they know or think a gun might be owned by the victim. That argument doesn't really seem to be holding any water when you look at "bad neighbourhoods" or to a degree when you look at the US as a whole.

Those making that argument don't seem to appreciate that there might be a disconnect between what criminals claim and what actually is the truth.

All the data, from various methodologies, indicates a strong positive correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.

UCR data proves you false.

Unless you'd care to explain how DC, with a gun BAN, has the highest crime rate in the entire country?

Ownership isn't the problem, illegal use is. Wishing you could put the genie back into the bottle isn't going to solve the problem.

And, before you trot out that 300k figure again... show me where that info came from, and prove it's the only (or the main) source of crime guns.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Where I see that generalization break down is with societal/cultural issues (or what I believe are societal/cultural issues), such as gang violence and the drug culture.

The way I read that is that gun ownership may possibly stop some crimes. However, it aides one of the largest causes of crimes.....organized crime in the form of gangs and drugs.

Is that a worthwhile trade off?

Is leaving the law-abiding helpless against criminals who will still have guns going to result in less crime, do you think? There's a reason why the people responsible for the recent shootings are going to disarmed victim zones when they twist off, and it's not for the beautiful scenery.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Is leaving the law-abiding helpless against criminals who will still have guns going to result in less crime, do you think?

It seems to work for most of the rest of the western world.

Quote

There's a reason why the people responsible for the recent shootings are going to disarmed victim zones when they twist off, and it's not for the beautiful scenery.

Could it be because they want to target an area with large crowds or because of an intense hatred for the institution? Or is it only because they are no-gun zones?

And with the kid in the mall.....would the same have happened if he didn't have such easy access to his step-dad's guns?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Is leaving the law-abiding helpless against criminals who will still have guns going to result in less crime, do you think?

It seems to work for most of the rest of the western world.

Immaterial. Different laws and idfferent cultures.

Quote

Quote

There's a reason why the people responsible for the recent shootings are going to disarmed victim zones when they twist off, and it's not for the beautiful scenery.

Could it be because they want to target an area with large crowds or because of an intense hatred for the institution? Or is it only because they are no-gun zones?

And with the kid in the mall.....would the same have happened if he didn't have such easy access to his step-dad's guns?

More likely because they want to inflict the most damage before they're stopped. The more armed people in the area, the more chance they'll be stopped.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Immaterial. Different laws and idfferent cultures.

So when it comes to gun ownership and crime rates we won't be able to compare the US against other countries any more? No more reference to the registry in Canada? No more references to England or Switzerland?

Quote

More likely because they want to inflict the most damage before they're stopped. The more armed people in the area, the more chance they'll be stopped.

So you truly believe that when you are allowed to start carrying guns in malls and schools we will see a noticable decrease in school and mall shootings?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Immaterial. Different laws and idfferent cultures.

So when it comes to gun ownership and crime rates we won't be able to compare the US against other countries any more? No more reference to the registry in Canada? No more references to England or Switzerland?

And every time a thread about gun law in the UK comes up, we're told that the UK doesn't need our laws...seems like turnabout ISN'T fair play, then?

Quote

Quote

More likely because they want to inflict the most damage before they're stopped. The more armed people in the area, the more chance they'll be stopped.

So you truly believe that when you are allowed to start carrying guns in malls and schools we will see a noticable decrease in school and mall shootings?

People carried guns all over the country for a couple hundred years without these massacres - again, I state that it is more a cultural issue than an availability issue.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,111]

>People carried guns all over the country for a couple hundred years
>without these massacres . . .

They're not new. Google Charles Whitman, John Doyle Lee, Howard Unruh, Edgar Ray Killen, and John Linley Frazier. It's been going on for as long as there have been guns.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Okay, I just looked up the statistics provided by the FBI for 2006 and looked up which states (and one district) have murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates that are higher than 7.0 per 100,000. These states are (in alphabetical order):

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
District of Columbia
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississipi
Nevada
South Carolina

Out of these 10 states and district, 8 are shall issue states. 1 Is a may issue state where I understand it is effectively and practically a shall issue state. The only one left is DC. I think if we are being intellectually honest they really don't belong in that comparison. Outside of the fact it isn't a state, it really is materially different from any other state in the union.

Non of the other may issue states or no issue states show up in this top 10 (9 if we exclude DC).

Isn't this at odds with your argument?

[warpedskydiver 0]

It only would have any relavance if those rates were for gun crime only.

Can you show that those same rates apply when using that standard?

composite murder rates are not indicative of causation.

Are there other contributing factors in those rates?

Such as poverty, and drug related crimes, in conjunction with the murders?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It only would have any relavance if those rates were for gun crime only.

Why? I thought criminals would be detered from doing violent crimes such as murders and nonnegligent manslaughter if they thought their potential victims were possibly armed?

Quote

Are there other contributing factors in those rates?

Such as poverty, and drug related crimes, in conjunction with the murders?

I didn't hear you talk about contributing factors when Kennisaw was brought up in previous discussions? I didn't see you agreeing with the poster who brought up that when you require the citizens of a city to own a gun, you have effectively driven every convicted felon from your city. And that would most likely have a very significant effect on crime rates. Do you agree with that contributing factor?