Stop and Frisk

[quade 4]

DaVinci

But you can't prove that suicides would go down (Look at Japan, practically zero guns but higher suicide rates).

Comparing things in one culture to another frequently doesn't work specifically because they are two separate cultures. In the US suicide is culturally considered the "coward's" way out. In Japan, there is a tradition of it being the "honorable" way out.

That alone could account for the rates being different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Comparing things in one culture to another frequently doesn't work specifically because they are two separate cultures. In the US suicide is culturally considered the "coward's" way out. In Japan, there is a tradition of it being the "honorable" way out.

That alone could account for the rates being different.

Fair, but you can't really consider gun suicides as "Gun Violence" any more than you could claim suicides as "Pill Violence" or "Rope Violence".

Plus in areas with stronger gun laws, suicide rates do not change. When Canada passed stricter gun laws GUN suicides went down, but the suicide rate did not.

So using suicides as "Gun Violence" is dishonest.

[kallend 2,146]

archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html

www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/14/us/guns-and-suicide.html?_r=0

...

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

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

I was just posting the figures in answer to a question that was asked about how many tens of thousands of deaths per year were going on using guns

If you include suicides... the 3 tens. But you can't prove that suicides would go down (Look at Japan, practically zero guns but higher suicide rates).

So that leaves about 11k a year. The majority of those are black on black crime. And the majority of those were from people that are not allowed to own firearms using CURRENT law.

***Personally I am in favor of the magic button that removes all guns from everyone.

Fantasy. You may want to believe in magic, but the rest of us know reality.

If your dream worked, there would be no drug problem in the US.


I said that's fine target whoever you want.

But there is no way if my dream worked there would be no 'drug problem' (read as "no drugs") in the USA. I would definitely not use the button for that.

[quade 4]

But remember what I said just a couple of posts ago about not comparing one culture to another?

Check out this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Click on Firearm Homicide rate per 100K pop. Notice Canada and the US numbers. US = 3.21, Canada = 0.51

Now click on Non-firearm Homicide rate per 100K pop. Both are amazingly close to one another. US = 1.54, Canada = 1.30

Now let's look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

According to it, the US has 94.3 guns per 100 people and Canada has 30.8 per 100 people.

What I find interesting is the US has a gun density about 3 times that of Canada, but a firearm HOMICIDE (not suicide) rate greater than 6 times that of Canada.

So, the US is clearly far more violent with their guns than Canada culturally, but when guns -aren't- involved, they have roughly the same numbers of homicides.

Hmmm....

Can I draw a hard and fast conclusion from that? Well, on the surface and in just looking at the numbers it certainly does appear as if the guns are the issue.

How else can you account for it?

A culture of violence? Sure. But guns are clearly an enabler.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Since much of the gun violence in the US is gang related, why do you support taking guns away from law abiding citizens?

[OHCHUTE 0]

They are banning AR15's in MD and no AR's have been used in violent crimes since the DC snipers were killing people in OCT 2002. It's a matter of money. Maryland is assessing a $50 fee for every handgun now and a 4 hour training course. It's all about taking money from law abiding citizens to deal with criminals, and perps.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

Since much of the gun violence in the US is gang related, why do you support taking guns away from law abiding citizens?

I don't. I have never said law abiding citizens should have their guns taken away. My position isn't that simplistically juvenile and binary. I believe there is a middle ground.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

What is that middle ground? since the problem is criminals with guns, how do you propose taking them away without violating the rights of honest gun owners?

Perhaps we should use Prohibition or the war on drugs as a model.

[quade 4]

My middle ground will just push absolutist buttons, but a middle ground could exist through licensing and registration ensuring law abiding citizens access and cutting down access for criminals.

As I said, this pushes the buttons of the absolutists like the NRA, but I think it's far better than the Wild West situation we currently have.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Since most of the violence is gang related, do you honestly think they will not use other methods such as decapitation?

[DanG 1]

Drive-by decapitation? That would be awesome.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

DanG

Drive-by decapitation? That would be awesome.

Way to miss the point.

For drive bys, they would likely resort to Molotov cocktails, or other explosive devices, killing and causing more property damage than a shooting.

For all we know, they will resort to using IEDs. One thing I am sure of, the gangs will simply start using other ways to kill their rivals. Only in a Liberal Wet Dream does stricter controls on guns stop the violence from gangs.

[quade 4]

And it's a defeatist position to think nothing can be done or gun control can't be a piece of a larger solution.

Removing the tools of gang violence is only one piece, but it is, in fact, a piece.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

Way to miss the point.

Way to miss the humor.

Quote

For drive bys, they would likely resort to Molotov cocktails, or other explosive devices, killing and causing more property damage than a shooting.

Um no, they'd just get illegal guns, like they do now.

Quote

For all we know, they will resort to using IEDs. One thing I am sure of, the gangs will simply start using other ways to kill their rivals. Only in a Liberal Wet Dream does stricter controls on guns stop the violence from gangs.

Nothing will stop the violence from gangs except disrupting the gangs.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Exactly, and that is what stop and frisk is attempting to do yet those who "want something done" refuse to support any effort except infringing on the rights of honest citizens.

[DanG 1]

Stop and frisk infringes the rights of honest citizens.

- Dan G

[Bignugget 0]

Gravitymaster

Exactly, and that is what stop and frisk is attempting to do yet those who "want something done" refuse to support any effort except infringing on the rights of honest citizens.

People who want something done, only support efforts that infringe on the rights of honest citizens?

That explains a lot about your positions on things.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Bignugget

***Exactly, and that is what stop and frisk is attempting to do yet those who "want something done" refuse to support any effort except infringing on the rights of honest citizens.

People who want something done, only support efforts that infringe on the rights of honest citizens?

That explains a lot about your positions on things.

Other than the wet dream about banning all guns, let's here your proposal for reducing violence by gangs. Maybe we could just ask them nicely to stop killing each other. If you truly want to declare a "war on gangs" then let's declare martial law in areas they thrive and get those with warrants etc. off the streets. Or do you believe the Police are performing stop and frisk in low crime neighborhoods. Until Liberals stop kidding themselves about what needs to be done, we will continue to live with this gang scourge.

Hey, I know, lets ban gangs and start doing background checks on them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yeah, the problem is that innocent people get caught in the crossfire. Then the liberals want to take away the rights of self protection for those that have to suffer by living in neighborhoods where these gangs thrive and rule the streets.

I support background checks on gang members not innocent citizens.

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

I support background checks on gang members not innocent citizens.

You do realize you can't do one without the other; right?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

***I support background checks on gang members not innocent citizens.

You do realize you can't do one without the other; right?

Sure it can. Just make being in a designated gang illegal. Then a person is breaking the law if he has gang tattoos or other gang identifiable markings such as clothing, bandanas etc. Then run background check on them.
Are you willing to do what's hard to stem this wave of gang violence or not?

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

******I support background checks on gang members not innocent citizens.

You do realize you can't do one without the other; right?
Sure it can. Just make being in a designated gang illegal. Then a person is breaking the law if he has gang tattoos or other gang identifiable markings such as clothing, bandanas etc. Then run background check on them.
Are you willing to do what's hard to stem this wave of gang violence or not?

Oh my . . . you want to outlaw freedom of association?

Let's be perfectly clear here, that's what was wrong with the McCarthy hearings. It's also why groups such as the KKK still exist, deplorable as they are.

It's also why the NRA still exists.

Be careful what you wish for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

All very nice. But you don't have guns in Japan and they have a higher rate of suicide.

So guns != suicide.

"Also, suicide attempts using firearms, which constitute just 5% of all fatal and non-fatal attempts"

So according to your OWN source, firearms are only used in 5% of attempts. Drugs however are used in 75%.

If you wanted to claim they assist, you might have a valid argument, but to claim they CAUSE it is a stretch at best.

And that first report only tracks SUCCESS not attempts. So if you wanted to claim that firearms are effective, you would have a valid argument.

But you are not tracking attempts. Firearms are effective... No one disputes that. They are also quite effective in defending a home according to the most recent study prompted by Obama:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1


“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”

The same study said to "have found consistently lower rates of injury among gun using crime victims"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I said that's fine target whoever you want.

But there is no way if my dream worked there would be no 'drug problem' (read as "no drugs") in the USA. I would definitely not use the button for that.

Ah, you are fine with illegal drugs. Never mind that drug abuse takes more lives than guns. Heck smoking kills WAY more than guns.

Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking (CDC).

You could save 413,000 lives by banning smoking instead of guns.... But wait, there is more.

Suicides account for 48% of firearm deaths and studies have shown that suicide rates do not change based on gun restrictions. After suicides are removed from the pile (since they statistically happen anyway) we have 15,600 deaths.

443,000 smoking deaths compared to 15,600 gun deaths? Are you sure you really just want to save lives? 427,400 more people could be saved by banning smoking over guns.