PDA

View Full Version : Whatever happened to...



baggss
04-03-2015, 02:46 PM
...the "Who here has guns" and "Who here has tattoos" threads that used to be in here? :|

Did a key word search and came up with nothing. Those were two of the most interesting threads on the boards....

chscag
04-03-2015, 03:01 PM
Glad to see you back! Been quite awhile since you've posted. As for the Guns and Tattoos threads, I imagine they were removed for lack of participation.

louishen
04-03-2015, 03:19 PM
It's a conspiracy by members of the US government to take away your right to bear arms ;)

cradom
04-03-2015, 03:24 PM
Or your right to arm bears...whatever.

louishen
04-03-2015, 03:47 PM
Or even the right to bare arms, important to all t-shirt wearers

baggss
04-03-2015, 05:35 PM
Glad to see you back! Been quite awhile since you've posted. As for the Guns and Tattoos threads, I imagine they were removed for lack of participation.

That's sort of what I figured. Oh well. :Cool:

TattooedMac
04-03-2015, 11:33 PM
That's sort of what I figured. Oh well. :Cool:

Shouldn't stop you dropping in a new thread Baggss, with your latest ink :Cool:

toMACsh
04-04-2015, 01:50 PM
Or even the right to bare arms, important to all t-shirt wearers

...and those in the anti-tattoo camp.

RavingMac
04-04-2015, 07:13 PM
...and those in the anti-tattoo camp.

Is there such a thing?

Never really been interested in "inking up" myself, but never met anyone that had strong negatives about Tat wearers.

harryb2448
04-04-2015, 07:45 PM
And the bears want those arms too!

Great to see you back baggss.

toMACsh
04-05-2015, 09:03 AM
Is there such a thing?

Yeah, there is. A quick search with Yahoo! turned this up:


Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28

I was not aware of that, but you'll find more if you look. In many Christian circles, the above is apparently controversial. But some take it seriously. Others say look at the context and culture, the reason for the "ban", and try to compare that to today.

RavingMac
04-05-2015, 12:52 PM
Yeah, there is. A quick search with Yahoo! turned this up:



I was not aware of that, but you'll find more if you look. In many Christian circles, the above is apparently controversial. But some take it seriously. Others say look at the context and culture, the reason for the "ban", and try to compare that to today.

I guess I view that as more isolated pockets, rather than an Anti-Tattoo org. But, I understand what you are talking about.

FWIW the Christians I associate with and attend church with tend to be as heavily inked as the rest of our society. It simply isn't an issue.

EDIT: also FWIW, not personally keen on gross or creepy body art regardless. If I wouldn't want it as a poster on a wall, I don't want to see it on flabby flesh. :P

harryb2448
04-05-2015, 07:00 PM
One good thing about tatts. Makes identification easy for the cops and morticians.

chscag
04-05-2015, 08:27 PM
No tattoos here Harry, but the US government probably has at least a dozen sets of my fingerprints after working for them all those years! ;P

Dysfunction
04-05-2015, 09:50 PM
Is there such a thing?

Never really been interested in "inking up" myself, but never met anyone that had strong negatives about Tat wearers.

Just get one or two that are real visible... you'll meet them quickly, trust me ;)

Dysfunction
04-05-2015, 09:55 PM
I was not aware of that, but you'll find more if you look. In many Christian circles, the above is apparently controversial. But some take it seriously. Others say look at the context and culture, the reason for the "ban", and try to compare that to today.

For those unaware, Leviticus is the third book of the Torah.. which is fundamental to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, often superseded (or flatly ignored) ... Oh the chapter also describes blood sacrifices to be made.

Things like this, are why many things within the chapter are controversial (unless, that is, they support your view point.. then they seem to be highly touted, but no one seems to be willing to live by all the laws laid out in Leviticus.)

RavingMac
04-06-2015, 12:05 AM
For those unaware, Leviticus is the third book of the Torah.. which is fundamental to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, often superseded (or flatly ignored) ... Oh the chapter also describes blood sacrifices to be made.

Things like this, are why many things within the chapter are controversial (unless, that is, they support your view point.. then they seem to be highly touted, but no one seems to be willing to live by all the laws laid out in Leviticus.)

Not my intent to dis anyone or start arguments, but I will listen to the anti-tattoo crowd when they show up wearing Phylacteries and Fringes on the hems of their robes, plus following all the other requirements in the Torah.
The way I read it, it's all or none, you don't get to pick and choose . . .

TattooedMac
04-06-2015, 12:30 AM
EDIT: also FWIW, not personally keen on gross or creepy body art regardless. If I wouldn't want it as a poster on a wall, I don't want to see it on flabby flesh. :P

What, like this >> http://i.imgur.com/VYt0rhz.jpg
and this >>>http://i.imgur.com/A5lnMVZ.jpg

;P;P;P Which means a heck of a lot too me ;) Daily reminders !!!

vansmith
04-06-2015, 09:01 AM
Things like this, are why many things within the chapter are controversial (unless, that is, they support your view point.. then they seem to be highly touted [...]Absolutely. This is why it's always fun talking with students about confirmation bias especially when they don't think they're biased. ;)

RavingMac
04-06-2015, 09:30 AM
What, like this >> http://i.imgur.com/VYt0rhz.jpg
and this >>>http://i.imgur.com/A5lnMVZ.jpg

;P;P;P Which means a heck of a lot too me ;) Daily reminders !!!

Absolutely! ;P

Glad they work for you, but not something I would want to look at all the time. :)

Dysfunction
04-06-2015, 12:34 PM
Not my intent to dis anyone or start arguments, but I will listen to the anti-tattoo crowd when they show up wearing Phylacteries and Fringes on the hems of their robes, plus following all the other requirements in the Torah.
The way I read it, it's all or none, you don't get to pick and choose . . .

Yea... I got a sleeve going on.. it's ummm.. hard to miss ;)

Oh... and shall we say a less-than-secular education

lclev
04-06-2015, 01:02 PM
Well, I will never be a tattooed person - it's a needle avoidance issue for me. I don't care what others do and I even think some look very interesting.

I do remember standing in a Walmart line and looking at a much older lady who at one time had tattooed dragons on her "girls" and with her deep vee shirt they were on display. Only now, they looked like very stretched out long lizards. I used it as an object lesson for my kids, who were with me, and to this day no kids (now adults) with tattoos. ;)

As for guns - while I know the government knows about my registered guns and I do have a concealed carry permit (required in my state), I am afraid the day has come that we need to be very careful about what we reveal and say on the subject. Sad and unfortunate.

But I do believe in the right to bare....bear arms! ;)

Lisa

IWT
04-12-2015, 12:50 PM
This is a great part of the forums and entirely new to me. I must drop in more often. I scan those parts of the forums which relate to the Apple products I own and I have made modest contributions when I thought I knew the answer—which to my embarrassment turned out not to be the case on a few occasions!

I have no strong views on tattoos. I agree with whoever said that, if generally visible to the passerby, they should be of a nature not to offend.

As for guns. We in the UK find the whole subject a mystery. Unless one is very naughty or has the wrong contacts, acquiring a gun of any sort is extraordinarily difficult. I think that we are sometimes quick to condemn following shoot outs and massacres. Easy to do and easy to understand why; but it is a question of culture and history. Yours and ours are very different. Shall we just say that my views are flexible and, of course, culturally biased!

Anyway, this is a good-fun forum. More exploring needed!

Ian

XJ-linux
04-12-2015, 10:20 PM
I ground my 3 small leg and hand tattoos off with a Dremel and some Jack Daniels after college for a job. Who says they are permanent? Guns, on the other hand, I don't get rid of.

TattooedMac
04-12-2015, 10:32 PM
As for guns. We in the UK find the whole subject a mystery. Unless one is very naughty or has the wrong contacts, acquiring a gun of any sort is extraordinarily difficult.

This is one thing that blew me away in my 3 yrs living and working in London, and the rest of the country. Im not sure if it was because I saw them on Police Officers on US Crime shows, or the local Cops I was around at home, but to go into a city with 1,000,000+ citizens, not 1 single Bobby had a handgun, or any gun for that matter.
Mind you, I count walk from Putney to Camden Town, without them knowing where I was, due to the huge amount of CCTV cameras in and around London. I think that alone was one reason for not needing Firearms. Then again, if the Bobby's don't have them, then the Crims can't get them from the Bobby's :)


Anyway, this is a good-fun forum. More exploring needed!

Ian

I traverse the New Posts Tag, but look in every forum, because that is the best way to broaden your knowledge. You learn by looking, then doing :Cool:

lclev
04-13-2015, 11:55 PM
I ground my 3 small leg and hand tattoos off with a Dremel and some Jack Daniels after college for a job. Who says they are permanent? Guns, on the other hand, I don't get rid of.

Ow Ow Ow Ow!!!!! That had to hurt!!! But I agree on the guns. I tend to hang on to mine too.

I grew up with guns - rifles mainly, so I never thought much about them being around. I raised my kids to respect and use them. We live in a rural area so deer, squirrel, rabbit, etc are frequently on the menu.

I was amazed when a friend of mind told me she was terrified of guns just laying on a table - but she was also afraid of computers too. Hum......not sure what that says. ;)

Lisa

toMACsh
04-14-2015, 03:43 PM
Too many guns around. Yesterday here, a little kid ran out in front of a car. The driver had no time to react. The kid did not survive, but the driver got out immediately to try to render aid. As a reward for this action, he was shot dead by someone from the house the kid lives in. No one would turn the person in to the police. There are, at the very least, too many irresponsible gun owners. Senseless!

lclev
04-14-2015, 04:16 PM
Too many guns around. Yesterday here, a little kid ran out in front of a car. The driver had no time to react. The kid did not survive, but the driver got out immediately to try to render aid. As a reward for this action, he was shot dead by someone from the house the kid lives in. No one would turn the person in to the police. There are, at the very least, too many irresponsible gun owners. Senseless!

And there lies the problem. I come from a time when guns were a tool. Defense was not even discussed because that is not what they were used for at home. They were for hunting, sport, and food.

When I first started teaching, kids would bring their entire rifle to school and refinish the stocks or blue the barrel in my shop. I was a vocational agriculture teacher. We would have wild game cook offs at our FFA meetings.

No one though anything about a student with a gun on the rack in their pickup because they probably ran their trap lines before school or planned to go hunting after school.

Fast forward 30 years. By the time I retired in 2008, a student could not bring even a pocket knife or, heaven forbid, a forgotten 22 shell in their pocket to school or they were suspended and possibly facing expulsion.

Our society has changed and not for the better. Too many people with zero common sense and too many who don't value human life as we once did. So now we fault a mechanical object that propels a metal object and call it the problem. It isn't but it is the easiest to blame. More regulations, getting rid of all the guns, not the answer because the crooks will still have theirs.

I am all for gun registration, extensive training and background checks for any gun owner. Unfortunate that we should have to do that, but there are just too many who should never own a gun and there are too many illegal guns - especially in the hands of young immature adults.

But I said it before - 30 years ago this topic would have never come up. Sad.

Lisa

vansmith
04-14-2015, 06:54 PM
More regulations, getting rid of all the guns, not the answer because the crooks will still have theirs.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that tighter gun control regulations/laws lowers the incidents of gun related violence. Yes, crooks have guns but that will always be the case. The answer, as I see it, is not to arm people for the sake of deterring people because research will show that this actually exacerbates the rate at which populations commit gun related crimes.

Don't get me wrong - guns have a time and a place and for some, it's a necessary tool (as you rightly noted). I'm just not convinced by the "gun as a means of deterring criminal behaviour" argument.

Just a note - I don't actually care either way if people own guns. I couldn't care less but I'm willing to admit that this is perhaps a consequence of me being in a context in which guns aren't a thing that people either have or ever talk about (I've only every met one person in my entire life who owned a gun and I'm nearing 30 here). I'm sure, as with anything, if guns were a part of my life on a (semi-)regular basis, my opinion would probably be different. In that respect, all I have to fall back on is research and a lived reality that encourage me to disagree (respectfully so).

zewazir
04-14-2015, 07:20 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with that one. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that tighter gun control regulations/laws lowers the incidents of gun related violence.
I would really like to see that "overwhelming amount of evidence", because everything I have found falls into three basic categories, none of which supports the idea that stricter laws lower crime rates with respect to firearms.

First are the outright lies coming from government types whose primary purpose is to find more excuses to reduce liberty "for our own good". Like calling an auto-loading rifle an "assault weapon".

The second class are those reports which misuse statistics in support of a claim, such as the "fact" that other countries which have laws which severely limit - if not outright ban personal firearms - have lower firearms related crimes. Of course, they cherry pick their data, since there are also countries with extremely lax firearms laws, but very low crime rates, and there are countries with draconian firearms laws, and very high crime rates.

Then there is the third category, in which the data shows just the opposite: that looser laws, which allow people to choose more freely whether to own and/or carry a firearm, results in lower crime rates. Lisa's point is central: 30 years ago (or more) when laws regulating firearms were NOT as prevalent, gun control was not even an issue, and the concept of "gun free zones" would have been viewed as ludicrous. Going back even farther, to the 50's and 60's, people could MAIL ORDER firearms, yet gun crime was not a serious issue.

Prior to the years of prohibition and the resulting wave of organized crime revolving around the illicit trade in alcoholic beverages, people could go to the local gun store and pick up themselves a nice full-auto "tommy gun" with 50 or 75 round drum magazine, or even a full-functioning machine gun in 30 or 50 cal. Yet it took the mistake of prohibition and the resulting organized crime spree to make owning a full auto a "problem" in the eyes of government.

This indicates that the problem of crime using firearms is a CRIME problem, not a firearms problem.

IWT
04-15-2015, 04:49 AM
The thoughtful remarks of toMAcash, Lisa, Van and zewazir make it all the more difficult for an outsider to comment without appearing to interfere in a society that has different roots, different backgrounds and ideology different from one's own.

What could be stated, I think without offence, is that views on this matter within the US are deeply entrenched and rigorously defended. It is rare to read about a "middle ground" approach. And arguments based on "selected" statistics only serve to reinforce the old adage that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics".

I can readily understand the hunter-gatherer need for arms which, no doubt still pertains in certain parts and I can appreciate the concept of self defence which has been a historical right, in law. But I stumble a bit in comprehending how one needs an AK47 or similar to achieve this.

However, as a foreigner, I shall quietly retire from this debate in a spirit of cross-Atlantic comradeship.

Ian

Sawday
04-15-2015, 08:00 AM
"Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention" (Brady Campaign).

I'm still amazed that so many Americans think it's a good idea to carry a gun. Here in the UK we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either.

toMACsh
04-15-2015, 02:00 PM
I would really like to see that "overwhelming amount of evidence", because everything I have found falls into three basic categories, none of which supports the idea that stricter laws lower crime rates with respect to firearms.

I don't think that is what was stated. It was "lower incidence of gun related violence." Now, when someone gets mad and shoots at another person, that becomes a crime, because such behavior is against the law. But it is precisely this type of "gun crime" that logic tells me could be reduced with stricter gun laws. Now, robberies committed using a gun is another matter, and probably would not be affected that much.

BlackBoxInquiry
04-15-2015, 02:41 PM
CIA and other agencies own numbers show that the more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the lower the crime rates are.

Haven't looked since last year, but they can't be *that* different.

Nobody can tell me that I cannot protect myself and my family. Criminals don't obey laws, thus their title.

There is no utopia, no free lunch and Gov't isn't the answer in most cases. Common sense and education are.

vansmith
04-15-2015, 02:52 PM
I would really like to see that "overwhelming amount of evidence", because everything I have found falls into three basic categories, none of which supports the idea that stricter laws lower crime rates with respect to firearms.
The strong and persistent correlation between gun control regulation and gun related crimes as evidenced in the rate of crimes committed with guns isn't evidence of this?



First are the outright lies coming from government types whose primary purpose is to find more excuses to reduce liberty "for our own good". Like calling an auto-loading rifle an "assault weapon".
Without evidence, this is borderline conspiratorial.



The second class are those reports which misuse statistics in support of a claim, such as the "fact" that other countries which have laws which severely limit - if not outright ban personal firearms - have lower firearms related crimes. Of course, they cherry pick their data, since there are also countries with extremely lax firearms laws, but very low crime rates, and there are countries with draconian firearms laws, and very high crime rates.Without evidence, for all I know, you're cherry picking statistics as well.




Then there is the third category, in which the data shows just the opposite: that looser laws, which allow people to choose more freely whether to own and/or carry a firearm, results in lower crime rates.Without evidence, that makes no sense whatsoever. People here in Canada have fewer choices to carry guns and the gun related crime rate here is a fraction of what it is in the United States (not to mention the lower rates in Australia and Japan to name a few).


Lisa's point is central: 30 years ago (or more) when laws regulating firearms were NOT as prevalent, gun control was not even an issue, and the concept of "gun free zones" would have been viewed as ludicrous. Going back even farther, to the 50's and 60's, people could MAIL ORDER firearms, yet gun crime was not a serious issue.
Ok, and how does that disprove my point that now there is a correlation? If the culture around gun use changes and the cultural context is one in which gun related violence becomes more normalized, it is very possible that a new correlation emerges. In other words, if using guns in violent acts is more normal now, we ought to look at how people use their guns and if they're more likely to be violent, perhaps regulation is the answer.



Prior to the years of prohibition and the resulting wave of organized crime revolving around the illicit trade in alcoholic beverages, people could go to the local gun store and pick up themselves a nice full-auto "tommy gun" with 50 or 75 round drum magazine, or even a full-functioning machine gun in 30 or 50 cal. Yet it took the mistake of prohibition and the resulting organized crime spree to make owning a full auto a "problem" in the eyes of government.Yes, prohibition pushed alcohol underground but the numerous examples (again, Canada, Australia and Japan are just a few) of countries that have gun control laws illustrates that the consequences of regulation are quantifiably different.




This indicates that the problem of crime using firearms is a CRIME problem, not a firearms problem.Ok, and one of the ways to cut off crime at its knees is to regulate the tools that people are increasingly using to commit crimes.

zewazir
04-15-2015, 03:14 PM
"Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention" (Brady Campaign).

I'm still amazed that so many Americans think it's a good idea to carry a gun. Here in the UK we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either.
Thank you for proving my point about the use of bogus statistics and unsupported conclusions to promote gun control.

First of all, the UK has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. So exactly what has that accomplished? Two of the more restrictive laws in the UK were passed in 1988 and 1997. The 1997 amendment to the 1968 Firearms Act essentially banned private ownership of handguns. Did this control handgun crimes? In 1997, there were approximately 2700 reported crimes involving the use of a handgun. By 2001, that figure had increased to just under 6000. It was not until the passage of other laws which significantly increased the penalties for violent crime that the firearms crime rate started decreasing again in the UK. But 2013 numbers are still higher than 1997 numbers.

Conclusion: even outright bans on firearms do not reduce crimes using firearms. Logical, since criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.

Looking at the overall statistics for homicide, the UK has sat consistently between 0.8 and 1.2 homicides per 100,000 people for over 5 decades. The U.S. has sat UNconsistently between 4.6 and a peak of 7.1. The major point of these numbers is NONE of the gun control acts in the UK made a significant change in overall homicide rates. They have ALWAYS been much lower than the U.S. So the comment "...we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either." has NOTHING to do with gun control, but the fact that the UK is and for a long time has been, over all, less violent prone than the U.S. Perhaps we should be examining why that is, instead of blithely blaming an inanimate object for the problem.

As for the figures from the Brady Campaign, the Brady Campaign is well known to be the biggest liars in the U.S. when it comes to using inflated, misstated, or outright made-up numbers to promote their agenda of banning private firearms. For instance, the 289 shooting per day: only because they count someone shot three times as three shootings.

They also fail to mention that 2/3 of civilian shootings are self defense. Yes, it's a sad comment on our society that people find it necessary to use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones. But is it due to lack of gun control laws? HARDLY. If those people did not have the means to protect themselves, many of them would be murder victims themselves, not to mention victims of robbery, rape, battery, and a host of other crimes their actions prevented.

Let's also look at the number of 53 suicides using a firearm. Approximately 1/2 of U.S. suicides occur using a firearm. Would those poor, sad people still be alive if they had not possessed a firearm to kill themselves with? Nope. The suicide rate in the U.S. was 12.6 per 100,000 in 2013. in 2013, the suicide rate in the UK was 11.1 per 100K. 51.6% in the U.S used a firearm. 1.8% in the UK used a firearm. Conclusion: lack of firearms will not significantly reduce suicides.

AS I stated before, there are no valid statistics available showing gun control laws resulting in a reduction of firearms related crime. Conversely, data DOES show that crime rates DO tend to decrease in areas where firearms laws are relaxed.

Sawday
04-15-2015, 03:44 PM
Thank you for proving my point about the use of bogus statistics and unsupported conclusions to promote gun control.

First of all, the UK has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. So exactly what has that accomplished? Two of the more restrictive laws in the UK were passed in 1988 and 1997. The 1997 amendment to the 1968 Firearms Act essentially banned private ownership of handguns. Did this control handgun crimes? In 1997, there were approximately 2700 reported crimes involving the use of a handgun. By 2001, that figure had increased to just under 6000. It was not until the passage of other laws which significantly increased the penalties for violent crime that the firearms crime rate started decreasing again in the UK. But 2013 numbers are still higher than 1997 numbers.

Conclusion: even outright bans on firearms do not reduce crimes using firearms. Logical, since criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.

Looking at the overall statistics for homicide, the UK has sat consistently between 0.8 and 1.2 homicides per 100,000 people for over 5 decades. The U.S. has sat UNconsistently between 4.6 and a peak of 7.1. The major point of these numbers is NONE of the gun control acts in the UK made a significant change in overall homicide rates. They have ALWAYS been much lower than the U.S. So the comment "...we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either." has NOTHING to do with gun control, but the fact that the UK is and for a long time has been, over all, less violent prone than the U.S. Perhaps we should be examining why that is, instead of blithely blaming an inanimate object for the problem.

As for the figures from the Brady Campaign, the Brady Campaign is well known to be the biggest liars in the U.S. when it comes to using inflated, misstated, or outright made-up numbers to promote their agenda of banning private firearms. For instance, the 289 shooting per day: only because they count someone shot three times as three shootings.

They also fail to mention that 2/3 of civilian shootings are self defense. Yes, it's a sad comment on our society that people find it necessary to use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones. But is it due to lack of gun control laws? HARDLY. If those people did not have the means to protect themselves, many of them would be murder victims themselves, not to mention victims of robbery, rape, battery, and a host of other crimes their actions prevented.

Let's also look at the number of 53 suicides using a firearm. Approximately 1/2 of U.S. suicides occur using a firearm. Would those poor, sad people still be alive if they had not possessed a firearm to kill themselves with? Nope. The suicide rate in the U.S. was 12.6 per 100,000 in 2013. in 2013, the suicide rate in the UK was 11.1 per 100K. 51.6% in the U.S used a firearm. 1.8% in the UK used a firearm. Conclusion: lack of firearms will not significantly reduce suicides.

AS I stated before, there are no valid statistics available showing gun control laws resulting in a reduction of firearms related crime. Conversely, data DOES show that crime rates DO tend to decrease in areas where firearms laws are relaxed.

What Poppycock!

Try this for a fact "One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week. (source: CDC)" I understand that CDC is one of your government agencies.

You don't think that it's because we have strict gun controls over here that we have LESS gun deaths over here?

"They have ALWAYS been much lower than the U.S. So the comment "...we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either." has NOTHING to do with gun control" BullS**t! Perhaps you should try having strict gun control over there and see if your gun deaths decrease.

Sorry to have to show you up, but an awful lot of us this side (the civilised side) of the Atlantic think that your need to be tooled up shows you're no better than any terrorist in the undeveloped world.

zewazir
04-15-2015, 03:48 PM
The strong and persistent correlation between gun control regulation and gun related crimes as evidenced in the rate of crimes committed with guns isn't evidence of this?
WHAT correlation? You keep talking about "lack of evidence" yet provide nothing of your own. Like I said, SHOW IT, don't just claim it. Where is the correlation? Where is your "evidence"? You pick out 4 countries, and claim that as a valid data set? For every country with strict gun control AND low crime rates, I can show you a country with strict gun control and high crime rates (Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala just to name a few right off the top of my head). I can also show countries with lax gun control and low crime rates. (Sweden, Switzerland - and Israel, too, except it is difficult to separate out incidences of terrorism from "normal" crime rates).

Put 100 countries on a scatter plot relating gun control and crime rate, and the correlation between gun control and crime rates is less than .8 (R2 less than .6, which is statistical terms means no valid correlation.). Calculate additional factors which affect crime rates, such as penalties for crimes (in some countries, death is a common and quickly administered penalty), and the correlation drops to less than .5.

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research Center (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/)

The fact that Canada has a lower firearms crime rate than the U.S. does not yield a valid correlation between gun control and crime when the fact is that Canada's firearms related crime rates have ALWAYS been lower, even before gun control was passed. The so-called correlation is further invalidated by the fact that your gun control laws did not significantly decrease the crime rates in Canada. This analysis can also be applied to the UK, Japan, and Australia.

As with others, you simply prove the point that gun control advocacy is based on false statistics.

zewazir
04-15-2015, 04:01 PM
What Poppycock!

Try this for a fact "One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week. (source: CDC)" I understand that CDC is one of your government agencies.

You don't think that it's because we have strict gun controls over here that we have LESS gun deaths over here?

"They have ALWAYS been much lower than the U.S. So the comment "...we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either." has NOTHING to do with gun control" BullS**t! Perhaps you should try having strict gun control over there and see if your gun deaths decrease.

Sorry to have to show you up, but an awful lot of us this side (the civilised side) of the Atlantic think that your need to be tooled up shows you're no better than any terrorist in the undeveloped world.
Is this how one conducts a civil dialogue? Call me a terrorist?

Explain why UK gun crimes went UP after the gun ban of 1997. Explain why those self-same gun crime rates did not drop until UK laws increased penalties for violent crimes, which then resulted in decreased gun crimes AND decreased violent crimes of all types.

If you are an example of "civilized", I'll thankfully remain barbaric.

BlackBoxInquiry
04-15-2015, 04:38 PM
Here are a few sources that I've read/seen/followed.

There are other lists as well, from other agencies. The others also have results are very similar in nature.

Take a peek at what's below, if more is wanted, then it's suggested to try googling for results from CDC, CIA and more.

Some sources:

FBI — Violent Crime (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime)

FBI — Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December, 2012 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012)

FBI — Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2013 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2013)

FBI — Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2014 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2014)

News articles about this (past articles):

Firearms offences more than double since Dunblane - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html)

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html)


And a compilation of statistics, not just with the U.S., but worldwide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

lclev
04-15-2015, 05:50 PM
I know that on this issue, we will never arrive at an equitable consensus. Too many diverse cultures and countries living in different situations.

I have debated long and hard on whether to share the following two incidents that happened to me. No statistics, no inflation, just the facts.

There have been two times in my life I have had to draw a gun to protect myself.

The first time was at a state fairground in an isolated camping area where I was parking by a friend’s camper. A man, who made it obvious he wanted to rob and harm me, approached me. I didn't have to read much into his actions as he was telling me (and so was his knife) what he had planned. There was no one else around or within shouting distance. My husband had insisted I care a gun with me since I would be on this trip alone. I thought he was over reacting as I was meeting with friends. All I can say now is I am glad he insisted. When I pulled the gun out, it changed everything. The guy threw his hands up, started saying he was just kidding, backed up and took off running.

The second time I was walking with a friend in a local cemetery, which we do all the time for exercise. A man came racing back to where we were in a pickup truck. He stopped, got out, and let his dog out. It was obvious he was drunk - and was still drinking beer. He noticed us walking and I heard him sic his dog on us. I was shocked to say the least, and I was praying in my head, "Don't make me shoot this dog!" I yelled, "Bad dog - no" at the dog when he got close to us, and it worked! The dog returned to his owner who proceeded to put the dog in his truck and cruise over to us. I proceeded to walk back and opening my truck door so I could conceal the gun when I drew it out. I did not want to escalate the situation. He drove by us and I watched his hands on the steering wheel. He ended up calling us an inappropriate name and roared off.
In both incidences, I am very glad I did not have to make the decision to pull the trigger.

A few concluding thoughts:

1 - For women, a gun can provide an advantage over a man in a life or death situation.

2 - There is no doubt in my mind that in the first scenario, I would have been severely wounded or killed. He made his intent very clear.

3 - There were no police persons or cameras around to help or observe. Yes, both incidences were reported to local police and neither persons were ever found.

4 - Until you are in a situation where you need a gun for self-defense you cannot know how that feels or have a valid opinion.

Lisa

Dysfunction
04-18-2015, 10:22 PM
I'm still amazed that so many Americans think it's a good idea to carry a gun. Here in the UK we don't carry guns - we tend not to get shot either.

Americans seem to be very keen to kill each other. Also one of the very highest percentages of incarcerated per capita in the first world. It is painfully obvious that something is wrong, culturally, in the United States to have the crime statistics it does.

BlackBoxInquiry
04-19-2015, 01:46 PM
Try some of the sources 3rd post up.

XJ-linux
04-28-2015, 11:26 AM
Speaking of firearms... Colt lowered pricing to distributors this week. I just ordered a new O1970A1CS for $841 (vs $934). Git some!

toMACsh
04-30-2015, 01:52 PM
More "evidence":
Just the other day, a woman in our city was carjacked. She is the mother of young children, for what that is worth. She was shot three times, and has lost her vision in one eye. The young "tough" who was arrested said he "was tired of walking and had a gun" when asked why he did it. If he didn't have a gun, presumably he would have kept on walking.

XJ-linux
04-30-2015, 07:42 PM
Here's an interesting interview with Wyatt Earp on gunplay. Appears even back in the day, exaggeration and drama were apparent.

WYATT EARP ON SHOOTING VS. GUNFIGHTING | LooseRounds.com (http://looserounds.com/2015/04/23/wyatt-earp-on-shooting-vs-gunfighting/)

zewazir
05-01-2015, 04:55 PM
More "evidence":
Just the other day, a woman in our city was carjacked. She is the mother of young children, for what that is worth. She was shot three times, and has lost her vision in one eye. The young "tough" who was arrested said he "was tired of walking and had a gun" when asked why he did it. If he didn't have a gun, presumably he would have kept on walking.
Glad you put the word "evidence" in quotations, since anyone knows anecdotal "evidence" is the weakest sort, and never amount to more than just what it is: a story.

That said, what evidence is there the young thug obtained his firearm legally? This is a valid question, because no matter how many laws you care to put on the books making it difficult, or outright unlawful for the average citizen to own and/or bear a firearm, the CRIMINAL, by definition, will not give a ripe pig fart about those laws. The ONLY people who are disarmed by gun bans are those who already obey the law.

Final comment: your supposition that the person would have simply walked on had he not had a firearm is, at best, fantasy. You can, if you wish to give yourself a lesson in crime and its relation to the average citizen, can easily look up hundreds of instances in which car jackings were accomplished using anything from knives to clubs to bare hands. Comes to mind a case I heard of a few years back in which the criminal used their bare hands to subdue their victim, then proceeded to kill the victim by running them down with their own vehicle.

Criminals are criminals, and the concept that taking away a preferred tool of violent criminals would decrease their criminal activities is just plain ignorant.

toMACsh
05-02-2015, 05:13 PM
There was nothing in the news report to indicate how the youngster got his hands on the gun. As for the "fantasy" aspect, I was merely concluding from his own statement that having the gun is what emboldened him to act. (and that didn't turn out to be your final comment) ;)

Is the statement or confession of the perpetrator considered anecdotal in a court of law? I'm not sure; any real lawyers reading this, please enlighten us. But I do know from many reports of trials that eyewitness accounts (someone other than the perpetrator telling what he/she saw) are terribly unreliable.

Your conclusion that in the case I "reported" that the young man was previously convicted of a crime, that is, a "criminal" is pure speculation. I did not supply that information, and presumably you did not see the same news report on my local TV station. Maybe this was his first offense, and he just made a very bad decision. I don't know.

You reached a conclusion for me; thank you for that. Problem is that it's yours, not mine. I won't characterize that; just an observation.

XJ-linux
05-02-2015, 09:13 PM
Clearly, what's needed, is new laws targeted at the 99.9% of 80,000,000 owners who do not misuse their firearms.

zewazir
05-05-2015, 01:02 PM
You reached a conclusion for me; thank you for that. Problem is that it's yours, not mine. I won't characterize that; just an observation.
No, I did not "reach a conclusion for you." What I did was point out the fallacies of YOUR supposition (ie: conclusion) that the car jacking would not have occurred if the criminal did not have a firearm.

The first fallacy is the ever-so-obvious implication that gun control laws would prevented him from having a firearm. Bottom line: no they do not prevent criminal from obtaining and using firearms to commit crimes.

The second fallacy is - the person's statement not withstanding - that the crime would not have taken place without the firearm. For instance, the individual (since you seem to have a problem with calling people who commit crime by the label criminals) the individual had not had a firearm, could still have decided he was tired of walking and used a rock. "I was tired of walking, and saw a handy rock." (or club, or tire iron, or knife, or any one of a hundred potential items which can be used as a weapon)

The REAL point of your anecdote is the sad state of our society in which a person can develop the attitude that because they are "tired of walking" they have the justification, in their own minds, to harm another person and steal their vehicle. When we address the ACTUAL causes of violent crime, instead blaming which tool they use and focusing on the politically convenient, but totally ignorant aspect of limiting legal use of firearms, then just MAYBE we can pull down our horrendous violent crime rates.

toMACsh
05-06-2015, 01:56 PM
No, I did not "reach a conclusion for you." What I did was point out the fallacies of YOUR supposition (ie: conclusion) that the car jacking would not have occurred if the criminal did not have a firearm.

Well, yes you did. You took my supposition about a specific occurrence and extrapolated it to an entire population of people that we cannot say definitively the young man in "my" story was a member of. Of course, now that we know he has committed one crime, we can call him a criminal, but having no prior information we cannot say whether or not he was one when he acquired the gun. We just don't have sufficient information to support that conclusion.

XJ-linux
05-06-2015, 03:17 PM
Well, it would appear that:

A) the gun was reported stolen from the shooter's mother, a few hours before the shooting occurred
B) the shooter was a juvenile (unsupervised handgun possession is a crime, even if you are a choir boy, even if the gun was legally obtained)
C) the shooter had just gotten off parole for a 2010 robbery (my guess is probation, but the article says parole) Shooter is 17, so he was 12 when he committed robbery. Parole or probation, for a violent crime it is again illegal to possess a handgun at any age, and regardless of whether it was stolen or not.
D) he has been arrested 6 times since 2009 ie: since age 11

Teen arrested after shooting woman during carjacking, police say | Local News - WISN Home (http://www.wisn.com/news/teen-arrested-after-shooting-woman-during-carjacking/32527250)

My personal impression is that the shooter was inclined towards poor impulse control and may well have bashed the mother's brains in to avoid walking if the mood struck him and he was unarmed. I don't believe the gun seduced him into committing a crime.

zewazir
05-06-2015, 04:52 PM
I find it amazing the extreme to which members of the anti-gun crowd will contort themselves in order to make a firearm, rather than the user of the firearm, appear to be the instigator of a crime.

The bottom line is having a firearm does NOT compel a person to commit crime, no matter how one spins like a top to present anecdotal "evidence". The concept that a crime would not have been committed IF the criminal did not have the firearm is simply naive.

Sawday
05-06-2015, 06:11 PM
I find it amazing the extreme to which members of the anti-gun crowd will contort themselves in order to make a firearm, rather than the user of the firearm, appear to be the instigator of a crime.

The bottom line is having a firearm does NOT compel a person to commit crime, no matter how one spins like a top to present anecdotal "evidence". The concept that a crime would not have been committed IF the criminal did not have the firearm is simply naive.

Tell me then, if the criminal did NOT have a firearm, how could he commit a firearm offence?

XJ-linux
05-06-2015, 09:07 PM
The crimes against the victim are essentially carjacking and aggravated assault or possibly attempted murder. They are aren't "firearms crimes" per se, just violent crimes. Focusing on mechanics rather than results is a bit obtuse, though it is good for prosecutors so they can leverage confessions or pleas in a case without full trial. However, it sort of moves the focus off the root causes and situation that caused the crime - a young person who for many reasons we might want to dig into, has been committing violent crimes since age 11. And does one feel better or less violated if they are blinded by a 17 year old via a knife, or a bat to the face, as opposed to a .22LR revolver? If they preferred to be shanked and not shot, and got their wish, is it a lesser or different crime?

Sawday
05-07-2015, 01:14 PM
Just wondering how many here would agree that anyone carrying a gun deserves to be shot?

toMACsh
05-07-2015, 02:00 PM
Teen arrested after shooting woman during carjacking, police say | Local News - WISN Home (http://www.wisn.com/news/teen-arrested-after-shooting-woman-during-carjacking/32527250)


Ok, the kid is a punk. Your digging proves that. This probably means I put too much stock in his statement, which obviously does not tell the whole story.

As far as the use of a gun in a crime vs. other weapons (which could include a fist), the point to make is that the outcome is more likely to be more severe for the victim if a gun is fired. It only takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger. To beat or stab someone to inflict the same trauma of a gun shot wound would take considerably longer. In short, it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with any other weapon available to a criminal.

XJ-linux
05-07-2015, 02:40 PM
Just wondering how many here would agree that anyone carrying a gun deserves to be shot?

I would disagree that anyone carrying a gun deserves to be shot. Based on available state data, 11.1 million non-law enforcement Americans legally carry a gun. I don't think I could support shooting them based on the sole fact they carry guns.

zewazir
05-07-2015, 05:55 PM
Ok, the kid is a punk. Your digging proves that. This probably means I put too much stock in his statement, which obviously does not tell the whole story.
Actually the statement tells a lot about the individual. The fact that his only motivation for committing the crime was being "tired of walking" immediately places the mind set of the individual as one who cares nothing for others, has absolutely zero respect for property, and also has a minimal respect for life itself. As such it was no risk at all to place the label of criminal on him, as people with that type of mind set are invariably habitual criminals.

His statement told me that it was unlikely that the presence of the firearm had significant influence on the commission of the crime, but was rather simply the tool chosen, out of innumerable tools available to him.

In short, the crime occurred because the person who did it is a thug, plain and simple. The implication that the gun CAUSED the crime is outright ludicrous.

zewazir
05-07-2015, 05:56 PM
Tell me then, if the criminal did NOT have a firearm, how could he commit a firearm offence?
You missed the point entirely. The claim was the crime would not have happened if the perpetrator did not have a firearm. That claim is naive at best.

zewazir
05-07-2015, 06:14 PM
As far as the use of a gun in a crime vs. other weapons (which could include a fist), the point to make is that the outcome is more likely to be more severe for the victim if a gun is fired. It only takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger. To beat or stab someone to inflict the same trauma of a gun shot wound would take considerably longer. In short, it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with any other weapon available to a criminal.
More totally unsupported assumptions on your part. For instance, the damaged cause to the average human skull by a full-force swing of an aluminum bat is far worse than being shot by a .22 revolver. The survival rate for being shot is actually higher than in cases of blunt force trauma to the head.

And while, according to you, it is "easier" to pull a trigger, violent crime statistics do not support your conclusions. FBI — Violent Crime (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime)

For instance, from the above available data, less than half of armed robberies are committed using firearms. (and ZERO were committed using the dreaded "assault" rifle.)

There were 1.5 times the number of aggravated assaults using various blunt weapons than using firearms. Similarly, aggravated assaults using hands or feet out number assaults using firearms. (and ZERO using the dreaded "assault rifle".)

In carjackings, firearms were used 45% of reported instances - less than half - which is why I immediately could dispute your allegation that having the firearm is what led to the carjacking your put forth as "evidence". (and ZERO using the dreaded "assault rifle".)

Only 8% of forcing rapes involve firearms. 68% of forcible rapes involve use of an edged weapon.

One thing I will say: it is easier to DEFEND against crime using a firearm. Just ask any LEO you know.