Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We talking Somalian pirates here?

Jihadin wrote:We talking Somalian pirates here?

I was thinking there are a lot more than 17 as well, however I suspect it is mean to refer to parrot & eyepatch pirates.

No True Pirate.

I mean...it seems so one sided for sea pirates.......bandits could be pirates...

I really don't worry about guns since according to statistics I'm more likely to be killed by a drunk driver.
The CDC statistics put the number of alcohol related deaths per year between 80-100,000.
Alcohol ruins and ends three times more lives per year than gun violence, yet there is far less control on that than guns.

Its the alcohol and firearm fault....ban em both and we all be safe from them......

 Jihadin wrote:
I mean...it seems so one sided for sea pirates.......bandits could be pirates...

From Webster:

pi·ra·cy
noun \ˈpī-rə-sē\
plural pi·ra·cies
Definition of PIRACY
1
: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2
: robbery on the high seas

So no. However is we include definitions 3A/3B in our "pool" of pirates...

3
a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

There's probably more pirates in the modern age then there was in the age of sail, and if you listen to the RIAA they (modern copyright pirates) cause for more damage and are much more morally blackened then a pack of degenerate seaborne rapists, murderers, cutthroats and assorted robbers.

 easysauce wrote:
According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

Because convicted criminals are renowned for their honest answers to questions about their offenses...

Racking my brains if Iever saw weapons fo sale at a flea market.....compound bows yes....knives yes....ninja toys yes....fire arms no.....if so....one thing that would hold me back from buying it......would the dang thing explode if I put a round through it......would you trust a fire arm to work right and proper for 20 dollars?

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

Because convicted criminals are renowned for their honest answers to questions about their offenses...

because the DOJ would be better off asking someone else about where they got the guns they commit crimes with?

not like their answers change anything, why would they lie? why would most admit to an illegal source, and therefore a possible additional charge?

unless the DOJ is also lieing?

 easysauce wrote:
because the DOJ would be better off asking someone else about where they got the guns they commit crimes with?

Not having anywhere else to get reliable answers doesn't make the answers they got any more reliable...

not like their answers change anything, why would they lie? why would most admit to an illegal source, and therefore a possible additional charge?

Because "I took it off the body of the last guy who asked me stupid questions" sounds more badass than "I bought it at a gun show thanks to a loophole in the law?"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually that money is spread to hell and yonder, national level funding for LEOs, roads, etc, I wouldn't count the majority of it off as being earmarked for entitlement programs.

That doesn't mean two gaks, really. You can't just wipe off 14% of revenue and expect anything other than disaster.

Also I'd say with a little reorganization, I have absolutely no doubt that most of the states could get by without the federal government in all it's "beneficent" and "magnanimous" "glory".

That's just using imaginary 'efficiency' to ignore how the world works.

I mean, yes, there are efficiencies in the world, the modern economy is built on improving efficiencies by a few percent each year, but this idea that some broad, sweeping idea could just magically produce the same results for less on a massive scale is fantasy.

We've been doing this 'economy' and 'government' stuff for a long time now - the easy solutions are all taken up. The progress now is small, incremental, year on year stuff.

Either way I think you're underestimating state power, especially when large numbers of states are operating in concert to oppose federal action, it's part of the system and it's designed to be that way.

Yeah, we all know the theory. But the point is that when you spend the time to observe how it really works, well power rests with the guy with the cheque book. You can pick out the odd exception, but they're extremely rare.

I'd also say I fail to see how Obamacare is a great deal for any one, much less the states, and considering the large amounts of resistance to it on the state level, I'd say plenty of states agree with me.

Yes, plenty of states are mounting resistance to it, but taking that as evidence that it is a bad deal for the states is very simplistic politics. Instead, you look at the very healthy levels of money being offered to the states and it simply is impossible to argue that Obamacare is a bad deal for state governments. Instead it becomes clear that resistance is the product of some combination of principle for more than just the state (one can believe it is bad for the nation while understanding it is beneficial for the state a person is representing) and political opportunism.

If you have trouble getting your head around that - look at the opposition to the stimulus money. Free money for infrastructure projects cannot be argued as harmful to a state... and yet some governors refused that money. Once again it comes back to some combination of principal and political opportunism to explain why.

A freaking nationalized health care program would cost us LESS then Obamacare.

A nationalised healthcare program would be cheaper than any other system. That's the total mindfeth of the whole debate - national healthcare is the cheap option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
Fair enough. Now out of those 3,633 murders due to arguments, what percentage of them involve someone with an existing criminal record? Gang-bangers don't just come into existance in the 'gang-banger's hangout'; they have parents and siblings and friends and accquaintances and coworkers and lovers and spouses and kids. And discounting violent crimes committed by people with criminal records as 'not committed by a known criminal' just because the crime was committed against someone the criminal knows is cooking the numbers to support a conclusion.

But then I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Because if you look at the numbers, the US doesn't have greater than average figures in other forms of violent crime, you're about par for break-ins, muggings, assaults and all the rest. So I don't know what your line of thinking above is, there doesn't seem to be a vast underclass of violent criminals that could be driving the astronomical murder and murder by firearm rate.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
Fair enough. Now out of those 3,633 murders due to arguments, what percentage of them involve someone with an existing criminal record? Gang-bangers don't just come into existance in the 'gang-banger's hangout'; they have parents and siblings and friends and accquaintances and coworkers and lovers and spouses and kids. And discounting violent crimes committed by people with criminal records as 'not committed by a known criminal' just because the crime was committed against someone the criminal knows is cooking the numbers to support a conclusion.

But then I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Because if you look at the numbers, the US doesn't have greater than average figures in other forms of violent crime, you're about par for break-ins, muggings, assaults and all the rest. So I don't know what your line of thinking above is, there doesn't seem to be a vast underclass of violent criminals that could be driving the astronomical murder and murder by firearm rate.

Just pointing out that just because a crime is committed by an acquaintance doesn't mean that acquaintance isn't in a gang. So I ask again: do you know what percentage of those 'acquaintance shootings' were done by a gang member shooting an acquaintance?

I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Citation needed. That is a bold claim.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Citation needed. That is a bold claim.

Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Citation needed. That is a bold claim.

Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...

Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.

The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.

 Ahtman wrote:

Arrr...me parrot be crying at the prospect.

Do we need to set up a charity to save the pirates? Looks like they're an endangered species

It's because they dont have guns to defend themselves with from all the hardened criminals who make up 100% of all people who kill others with guns once you factor out the brave patriots who kill to defend their flat sceen tv from theft by those same hardened criminals.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It's because they dont have guns to defend themselves with from all the hardened criminals who make up 100% of all people who kill others with guns once you factor out the brave patriots who kill to defend their flat sceen tv from theft by those same hardened criminals.

I'd like to point out that it's not the flat screen that I'm worried about! It's the potential injury to my senior citizen parents (any my cat) that might happen should someone try to walk off with the flat screen.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Citation needed. That is a bold claim.

Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...

Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.

The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.

Fair enough. I can't prove it... but it is a logcal inferance that someone whose living is provided by use or threat of violence (i.e armed robbery and extortion) will be more prone to use violence to solve personal conflicts than someone who works in, say, accounting, manufacturing, or delivery...

But then I'm still waiting on your citation proving that 100% of those 'associate shootings' are done by people with NO previous criminal records.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It's because they dont have guns to defend themselves with from all the hardened criminals who make up 100% of all people who kill others with guns once you factor out the brave patriots who kill to defend their flat sceen tv from theft by those same hardened criminals.

They do have guns, but really, muzzle loading muskets and pistols versus semi automatics? Then again, the pirates also have magic and leviathans.

It's not gonna end well.

I of course base my understanding of pirates on a certain series of films.

Vulcan wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Citation needed. That is a bold claim.

Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...

Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.

The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.

Fair enough. I can't prove it... but it is a logcal inferance that someone whose living is provided by use or threat of violence (i.e armed robbery and extortion) will be more prone to use violence to solve personal conflicts than someone who works in, say, accounting, manufacturing, or delivery...

But then I'm still waiting on your citation proving that 100% of those 'associate shootings' are done by people with NO previous criminal records.

I'm really tired right now, so maybe I missed something... but I think you may have me confused with someone else on that claim. I'm not actually even certain to what exactly 'associate shootings' refers at the moment.

'associate shootings' = rival gang bangers I think he was refering to.

Jihadin wrote:'associate shootings' = rival gang bangers I think he was refering to.

Ah. Yeah, that definitely wasn't me, then. My only claim was pointing out a logical fallacy in the argument being presented.

 Vulcan wrote:
Fair enough. I can't prove it... but it is a logcal inferance that someone whose living is provided by use or threat of violence (i.e armed robbery and extortion) will be more prone to use violence to solve personal conflicts than someone who works in, say, accounting, manufacturing, or delivery...

Yes, but it's a logical inference that just doesn't explain the scale of the issue, nor does it line up with the other figures we know about the US and other developed countries.

If you had home non-lethal violent crime rates that were four or more times the rate of other developed countries, and property crime rates that were four or more times the rate of other developed countries, well then it would make sense to say 'well the reason our murder rate is four times the rate elsewhere in the world is because we have a much larger criminal underclass'.

But you don't have rates that much bigger than us. In fact, your rates are pretty much on par with the rest of us, and slowly declining like the rest of us. Then you see the US murder rate and the deaths by firearms numbers sticking out so far and it's impossible to pretend it's a result of hoodlums shooting each other.

Now, that doesn't mean that therefore guns have to be banned. It just means you have to be honest about what effect guns have. Relapse mentioned earlier that the CDC calculates that alcohol kills 80,000 or more a year, making it eight times worse that firearms, and therefore a bigger problem. But it'd be crazy nonsense to say 'therefore ban alcohol' and don't do anything about guns. Instead, what people have to do is accept that 80,000 number as the basic reality of the situation, and use that to inform what we will and won't do about the situation.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.

Citation needed. That is a bold claim.

Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...

Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.

The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.

all lawful people are only law abiding till they are not, thats not really fair or proving of any valid point.

the best predictor we have of future actions are past actions,

hence why people who have had violent pasts tend to have violent futures, and why those without continue to lack violence.

all lawful people are only law abiding till they are not, thats not really fair or proving of any valid point.

the best predictor we have of future actions are past actions,

hence why people who have had violent pasts tend to have violent futures, and why those without continue to lack violence.

Not a flame. I have a violent pass. I'm capable of violence. I own weapons. I've use weapons to do harm. I though have high values and standards. Do you think I will become violent in the civilian world?

 Jihadin wrote:


Not a flame. I have a violent past. I'm capable of violence. I own weapons. I've use weapons to do harm. I though have high values and standards. Do you think I will become violent in the civilian world?

The initial 'White Tea Party Type' speculation about the Boston Marathon bombers leads me to suspect some hope you do so they can use you as a "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" example.

I don't blame people for stocking up on guns these days. I've just been reading that the Pentagon has 'allowed' itself the ability to intervene in domestic disturbances without local or state consent... hmm

I seem to recall a few hundred years ago, a bunch of guys wearing red coats took it upon themselves to march through the countryside to seize some weapons. The locals were not happy.