No one needs 15 rounds

[The Dark Side of Will]

No one wants to really discuss this because it is extremely awkward and a difficult problem. None the less, consider NYC's own statistics:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/analysis_and_planning/crime_and_enforcement_activity.shtml

From 2009-2013, whites essentially did not engage in gun crime (characterized as any crime where a person was shot), they were victims 1.3-2.4% of the time (even lower for asians) in a city which is roughly 30% black, 30% white, and 30% hispanic (+/- 5% or so really). Suspects were almost almost exclusively non-white.

It goes even further than that... I may still have the link, but I ran across an analysis showing an extremely strong correlation between black population and crime rate. It's one of those things that pretty much every social scientist knows, but nobody talks about.

Poverty and lack of opportunity influence SO much more about crime than the presence of guns does...

[profbooty]

Of course, I fully understand that there is more to gun violence than just guns. My problem is with those people who refuse to even acknowledge this country's problems with guns, who say that it has NOTHING to do with gun violence, or even that we need more guns. Any efforts to reduce gun violence must include various types of reforms, including mental health, gang enforcement, poverty alleviation, and of course things like background checks and waiting periods. The problem comes when one side (the right) outright refuses to even bring up the topic of guns. All of these things are interrelated, so for an effort to be effective it needs to include all pieces.

Switzerland also requires the everyone who owns a gun have extensive training and licensing. Hence why they don't have as many murders, accidental shootings, or other gun crime.

Sure, the reasons are complex, but the fact of the matter is, the reason why rates are so low is that Europeans, like European Americans (same for Asian-Americans and Asians), really don't engage in gun crime all that often. Even in extreme poverty, gun owning and drug ridden Appalachia, this is the case. Mass shootings are a bit different, as I think those likely are the result of narcissism and mental health issues.

No one wants to really discuss this because it is extremely awkward and a difficult problem. None the less, consider NYC's own statistics:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/analysis_and_planning/crime_and_enforcement_activity.shtml

From 2009-2013, whites essentially did not engage in gun crime (characterized as any crime where a person was shot), they were victims 1.3-2.4% of the time (even lower for asians) in a city which is roughly 30% black, 30% white, and 30% hispanic (+/- 5% or so really). Suspects were almost almost exclusively non-white.

Hopefully this answer's your question as to why Europeans have such lower levels of gun crime, because their demographics don't appear to engage it in very much worldwide (unless it is state sanctioned during wartime).

This is why stop and frisk, while probably not constitutional (and a really horrifying concept), was so effective. Along these same lines, you can't just take away firearms from those most likely to engage in using them violently unless one wants to re-implement Jim Crow. That just is not socially or legally acceptable in 21 century america as EVERYONE is equal under the law, and declaring minorities second class citizens would likely lead to warfare.

What I would propose instead, is that since those convicted of firearms charges often admit that they obtained them via straw purchases, give the same sentence to a straw purchaser as that of the person who committed a gun crime.


-----------
I think Switzerland's militia system likely would result in fewer accidental shootings due to familiarity, regulations and culture, but I'm not as convinced that it would explain why the murder rate is lower. I would imagine, that like in the US, younger Caucasians just don't find firearms as an acceptable way to solve disputes.

[The Dark Side of Will]

[QUOTE=CorvallisBMW;4136963]
No, it wouldn't change the US rankings at all, just move Mexico up.

Since Mexico is below the US in the Assault chart, Mexico moving up would move the US down.

a) I never said assault wasn't a violent crime

Yeah, you pretty much did.

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide.

What the chart showed that you apparently missed is that countries without as many guns had higher rates of VIOLENT non-firearm crime than the US. Go read some Google results on "more guns less crime", educate yourself on what the reality of the situation.

b) Of course people can be hurt or even killed during a robbery or assault. I never said they couldn't.

And acknowledging this, you'd still take away peoples' capability to defend themselves? Fuck you.

you're still much better off facing an assault than a homicide.

There you go again, making the crackhead assumption that you know which one it's going to be ahead of time. I'm not taking that risk.

No matter how my attacker is armed (and he WILL be armed... he didn't come expecting a fair fight), I'm better off facing him with a gun than without.

Now, what about all the annual DGU's? The NRA says there are 3,000,000 each year, while the Brady Bunch says there are 150,000 each year... So say there are 1 million people each year who use a gun to avert an attack without firing it. Do you tell them "take your chances, you probably won't be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life"? If so, fuck you again.

[marshallnoise]

Unfortunately we have a huge movement of people very passionate about a subject they really know nothing about. It's an easy bandwagon to jump on, gives people something to get behind and feel like they are "making the world a better place". Misguided enthusiasm is a sad waste.

Kind of like Twitter activism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

You can point the finger at the right refusing to talk about the topic but people like you refuse to be educated AT ALL about them nor care to do any research outside of biased shit on a silver platter to tell you want to think.

Unfortunately we have a huge movement of people very passionate about a subject they really know nothing about. It's an easy bandwagon to jump on, gives people something to get behind and feel like they are "making the world a better place". Misguided enthusiasm is a sad waste.

[rwh11385]

Of course, I fully understand that there is more to gun violence than just guns. My problem is with those people who refuse to even acknowledge this country's problems with guns, who say that it has NOTHING to do with gun violence, or even that we need more guns. Any efforts to reduce gun violence must include various types of reforms, including mental health, gang enforcement, poverty alleviation, and of course things like background checks and waiting periods. The problem comes when one side (the right) outright refuses to even bring up the topic of guns. All of these things are interrelated, so for an effort to be effective it needs to include all pieces.

None of your prior posts seem to speak to that. Your stance makes it seems like "assault rifles" and high-capacity magazines are the root of the problem, or at least that is what your focus is on the solution. Funny in this quote you now make no mention of either although there's a lot of other mentioned items.

You can point the finger at the right refusing to talk about the topic but people like you refuse to be educated AT ALL about them nor care to do any research outside of biased shit on a silver platter to tell you want to think.

Want to reduce gun violence? Why not take a lesson from how gun violence was reduced over the last couple decades?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

It looks like there is trend towards less gun violence which people like you don't seem to even be aware of...

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends ( Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008 ) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

Fighting poverty and reducing drug demand...



edit, more charts to explain why people perceived issues differently than the truth:


With all the media sensationalism, you wouldn't figure that the worried parents' kids are growing up in a safer US than when they were their age...

[CorvallisBMW]

You're too much of a shit to admit when you're wrong

This level of derp indicates you don't know it's a per capita rate.

Oops, I left the word "rate" of of my reply. So sue me. You're really going to get hung up on that one missing word, when I clearly was referring to the per-capita rates indicated in the data? I know you're desperate, but come on...

Its not PC, but for the same reason's that NPR pointed out last night (availability of illegal firearms, poverty, gang violence) as to which demographic in Brazil is predominantly the victim and perpetrator of violent crime.

Its not suburban, jewish, first chair violinists who are perpetrating much of the gun murders in this country (or in Brazil), rather an outsized portion of a demographic making up 13% of the population.

If it was merely the availability of firearms, then Switzerland should more violent than the USA. Rather its poverty, culture and demographics that make the difference.

Of course, I fully understand that there is more to gun violence than just guns. My problem is with those people who refuse to even acknowledge this country's problems with guns, who say that it has NOTHING to do with gun violence, or even that we need more guns. Any efforts to reduce gun violence must include various types of reforms, including mental health, gang enforcement, poverty alleviation, and of course things like background checks and waiting periods. The problem comes when one side (the right) outright refuses to even bring up the topic of guns. All of these things are interrelated, so for an effort to be effective it needs to include all pieces.

Switzerland also requires the everyone who owns a gun have extensive training and licensing. Hence why they don't have as many murders, accidental shootings, or other gun crime.

[meanEG]

its not pc, but for the same reason's that npr pointed out last night (availability of illegal firearms, poverty, gang violence) as to which demographic in brazil is predominantly the victim and perpetrator of violent crime.

Its not suburban, jewish, first chair violinists who are perpetrating much of the gun murders in this country (or in brazil), rather an outsized portion of a demographic making up 13% of the population.

If it was merely the availability of firearms, then switzerland should more violent than the usa. Rather its poverty, culture and demographics that make the difference.

qft

[ParsedOut]

b) Of course people can be hurt or even killed during a robbery or assault. I never said they couldn't. But considering that 99.9% of such crimes don't result in death, you're still much better off facing an assault than a homicide.

Who's making up statistics now?

[profbooty]

Can any of the gun-tards in this thread explain to me why the US has a gun homicide rate 20 times higher than other industrialized nations? Because to everyone who isn't full-blown, head-up-their-ass in denial about the facts, it's pretty obvious.

Its not PC, but for the same reason's that NPR pointed out last night (availability of illegal firearms, poverty, gang violence) as to which demographic in Brazil is predominantly the victim and perpetrator of violent crime.

Its not suburban, jewish, first chair violinists who are perpetrating much of the gun murders in this country (or in Brazil), rather an outsized portion of a demographic making up 13% of the population.

If it was merely the availability of firearms, then Switzerland should more violent than the USA. Rather its poverty, culture and demographics that make the difference.

[BraveUlysses]

You're too much of a shit to admit when you're wrong

Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

This level of derp indicates you don't know it's a per capita rate.

[CorvallisBMW]

Swing and a miss. It's a per capita chart you're looking at so the population size does not matter.

um, duh? What makes you think I didn't realize that? I was pointing out that numbers like those can often vary from country to country depending on their definition of the crime.

I think it's more likely that the crimes that get reported in Belgium go unreported in Mexico... Or maybe the Mexican police don't bother tracking less severe crimes because they're too busy fighting the US' drug war.

Probably very true.

Either way we probably agree that crime in Mexico is WAY worse than that chart shows, which just serves to put the US one notch lower in the rankings.

No, it wouldn't change the US rankings at all, just move Mexico up.

A) How is an assault NOT a violent crime?
B) Your contention that people should sit back and take the risk that a robbery or assault won't leave them dead, maimed or permanently injured is absurdly arrogant and completely out of touch with the reality of these events. If it happened to you, you WOULD wish you had a gun.

a) I never said assault wasn't a violent crime
b) Of course people can be hurt or even killed during a robbery or assault. I never said they couldn't. But considering that 99.9% of such crimes don't result in death, you're still much better off facing an assault than a homicide. So if the choice is to have a situation with either 1) more assaults and robberies but fewer homicides, or 2) fewer assaults and robberies but more homicides, you're far less likely to be killed in country #2. And as I said, I'd rather be alive than dead. And so would you.

[frankenbeemer]

Not really part of the discussion, so spare me the rebuttals.
I've always been in awe of this:


...and even more of this:

[rwh11385]

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide. Stuff that's taken out of your home can be replaced. bruises and black eyes heel. But once someone is dead, they're dead. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have someone steal my TV than shoot me in the head

So you don't know the difference between Burglary and Robbery do you???

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/robbery

rob·ber·y [rob-uh-ree]
noun, plural rob·ber·ies.
1.
the act, the practice, or an instance of robbing.
2.
Law. the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

Robbery is done with violence or the threat of violence.
Burglary is where one would break and enter your home and steal your TV... they are a bit different

And you have really no influence in the choice of the person robbing you if they kill you or not, do you?

A) How is an assault NOT a violent crime?

B) Your contention that people should sit back and take the risk that a robbery or assault won't leave them dead, maimed or permanently injured is absurdly arrogant and completely out of touch with the reality of these events. If it happened to you, you WOULD wish you had a gun.

Dude, just because he doesn't know what this stuff means doesn't mean he doesn't feel entitled to an opinion about it!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery.

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by an intent to kill, rob, or rape.

Just because he's nice and cozy and always has been or would personally prefer not to have any control in the outcome of a criminal meaning to do harm to him doesn't really mean he has the right to define our rights.... right?

[rwh11385]

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.)

I'm saying you will NEVER hear more than the biased drivel out of mother jones if you never educate yourself or mold your views with anything outside of liberal media telling you want to think. You also never heard of CCW stopping mass shootings but there were just as many links as the ones you posted about someone jumping the shooter during a reload. I'd rather someone be stopped before the first shot or after a couple than after draining an entire magazine on unarmed victims, personally...

You also never responded to the CDC's study that showed that all the regulations to ban certain gun types are ineffective at reducing gun violence and that most people who conduct gun violence are in fact people who disregard any of the laws anyway. Arguing based on what you feel and what you are told to think by biased sources and for ideas that have been shown to be ineffective while simplifying a complex issue (homicides tied to poverty, drugs, gangs) to only have one cause, the tool that they use, while basing your world view in one of the states with the lowest homicide rate is a little naive. You don't get the desire for someone to protect themselves or their household and want to determine based on your limited view what their rights should be... where do you get off thinking that? Do you even pay attention to the massive drop in firearm crimes while the public think that it is on the rise? [Farbin's post] Do you just expect to magically be informed about a subject if you never take any time to read up on opposing viewpoints before calling them stupid?



You're in the lowest quartile.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZC08iVCkjVA/TvzolM9E46I/AAAAAAAAIMY/Hvt-x4jBLAo/s1600/murder_per_100%252C000.png

Have you ever been outside of the Beaverton / Portland bubble?

Try living in Flint and then attempt to say that you think it's a brilliant idea to try to put hurdles for law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves from criminals who don't obey regulations.


Yes, the US has a lot more guns than other countries (because it was founded because of minority of civilians with them fought for what they believed in) so the means of crime is far more likely to be a gun rather than a knife or a blunt object or brunt force. But, the fact you seem to gloss over is that the US also has a lot more poor people than other developed nations:



It's been shown that pre-school lowers crime rate and raises future income levels while ineffective regulations on guns are talked about a lot more. Decriminalizing drugs would reduce addiction and greatly reduce the incentive for drug markets, while legalizing weed would fill state coffers to increase funding for police. But since neither side seems too concerned with facts and stick to stubborn beliefs, time is wasted on what is known to not work.