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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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

May want to check your sources. If it is what I saw, it is a bunch of crap. The DoD cannot add to or change US Code which is what the very poorly written articles are saying. DoD can't 'allow itself' to do any of that, and I would bet a paycheck didn't even lobby for any changes that were actually made.

All they have to do is get Homeland Security in the loop and they can follow the same rules... or lack thereof.

 Jihadin wrote:

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?

I did say "tended", and "best" predictor, I OBS wasn't trying to be claiming that it was really that black and white, just that the statement "law abiding gun owners are only law abiding till they are not" by az earlier is not really saying anything, let alone refuting my earlier point.

I know there are some exceptions, and heck, I have had to be "violent" in myself too, but just as in your case it was justified/part of the job/had to be done and all that.

but having a history being violent in a combat situation, when violence is appropriate, is not the same as having a past of randomly or otherwise unjustifiable violence in situations where it is not warranted.

but having a history being violent in a combat situation, when violence is appropriate, is not the same as having a past of randomly or otherwise unjustifiable violence in situations where it is not warranted.

I know Easysauce. Wasn't.....throwing you under the bus. We are ask repeatedly these questions. I just used you to open this "door" Military is really keeping tabs on us while serving and no longer active.

1. Have I had suicidal thoughts
2. Have I thought to harm others
3. Have I thoughts to harm myself

I did have one soldier that kept refusing to go mental health. Fearing it would damage his carreer potential. I slammed him with a negative counseling statement and for corrective action he was to set his appt's behind the 1st SGT or PLT SGT's. Problem solved....two more neg's then UCMJ.

I believe that HIPPA needs to take a backseat when a military S/M purchase a weapon. I believe also that same action be applied to the civilians. I also believe that one cannot use combat vets mental health records as a establish guideline to determined if civilians are eligible to own a fire arm

easysauce wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

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?

I did say "tended", and "best" predictor, I OBS wasn't trying to be claiming that it was really that black and white, just that the statement "law abiding gun owners are only law abiding till they are not" by az earlier is not really saying anything, let alone refuting my earlier point.

I know there are some exceptions, and heck, I have had to be "violent" in myself too, but just as in your case it was justified/part of the job/had to be done and all that.

but having a history being violent in a combat situation, when violence is appropriate, is not the same as having a past of randomly or otherwise unjustifiable violence in situations where it is not warranted.

I'm just throwing the obvious wrench into your mechanism of using the mythical boogeyman of the villainous inner-city minority to represent the cause of all gun crime, when a significant chunk of gun violence is domestic. Hence, my statement that firearm owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.

gangs, organized criminals, and repeat offenders are not "mythical boogeymen"

or maybe they are just mythical boogey men until they are not,

either way, I did NOT attribute all gun crime to some villianous minority, dont put that kind of racist rhetoric in my mouth, its just trolling at that point and is neither polite, factual, or a real debate method.

if I quote an article, where the DOJ finds that 80% of gun crime in chicago is due miniority gang activities,

that is the findings of the DOJ, not me, and it is no less true just because you dont want to accept that.

instead of simply saying "the results of the DOJ survey are a lie"

maybe we should be tackling the root issues, like why are there so many gang members?

why is organized crime flourishing in certain cities?


beasides that, the whole point of this article is that anti gun lobbiests constantly say that it is an undisputed FACT that more guns causes more crime.

so get on topic and discuss,
why is gun crime going DOWN despite the # of owners, and guns going UP?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm just throwing the obvious wrench into your mechanism of using the mythical boogeyman of the villainous inner-city minority to represent the cause of all gun crime, when a significant chunk of gun violence is domestic. Hence, my statement that firearm owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.

And again, you ignore that those inner-city minorities criminals ALSO have families...

I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.

 Hordini wrote:
I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.

Because, logically... the bad guys knows that the odds are in their favor that their target would not be armed

Erm... that is logical...right?

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.

Because, logically... the bad guys knows that the odds are in their favor that their target would not be armed

Erm... that is logical...right?

You posted a picture a little while ago that showed where gun crime was centrally located, I believe. And it lined up almost perfectly with how regions in the U.S. tended to vote. I think there is a lot more correlation there then people would like to admit.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.

Because, logically... the bad guys knows that the odds are in their favor that their target would not be armed

Erm... that is logical...right?

You posted a picture a little while ago that showed where gun crime was centrally located, I believe. And it lined up almost perfectly with how regions in the U.S. tended to vote. I think there is a lot more correlation there then people would like to admit.

You mean this one?

Wow thats very interesting. Source?

 Hordini wrote:
I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.

Many reasons. Cities tend to have a more dense population and in many cities (especially high crime areas) a very high proportion of poor folks. There is also somewhat of a breakdown of family structure in many of these areas (many single parent households). Gang activity (which in some ways compensates for the breakdown of the family structure, or at least takes advantage of it) and the associated narcotic activity contribute to violence amongst a group of people who could care less about gun laws.

Plenty of other factors involved too. An unarmed pool of victims doesn't hurt.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow thats very interesting. Source?

Twitter feed...

I've seen the FBI one by itself in the FBI site...

The 2012 one looks right though.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow thats very interesting. Source?

Twitter feed...

I've seen the FBI one by itself in the FBI site...

The 2012 one looks right though.

Yep, thats the one I was talking about.

I'm not a sociologist, but I bet if people were interested in really discovering the cause of rates of gun violence, that chart would be where to start.

Interesting map, thanks for sharing

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow thats very interesting. Source?

Twitter feed...

I've seen the FBI one by itself in the FBI site...

The 2012 one looks right though.

Yep, thats the one I was talking about.

I'm not a sociologist, but I bet if people were interested in really discovering the cause of rates of gun violence, that chart would be where to start.

CptJake's already brought up most of them. Large cities having higher rates of crime than smaller cities/towns is nothing surprising or really new.

I would love to see the actual metrics behind what was "low incidents of gun violence" v. "high incidents of gun violence".

Um, in regards to that map...looks like gun violence is higher in places with big cities, like the coasts or around Chicago. I think there was another statistic somewhere that big cities also tend to vote slightly more in the democratic direction than republican. So maybe this is really more about lots of people in one place = more gun violence, not democrats = more gun violence?

Ninja'd by Kanluwen it seems.

So more people = more murders = more democrats = PROFIT!

How about making a statement that is not incoherent rambling?

 Kanluwen wrote:
How about making a statement that is not incoherent rambling?

Never trust the police to protect your fundamental rights? Thats pretty coherent.

Or technically more democratic voters for Obama equals more murderers?

 Witzkatz wrote:
Um, in regards to that map...looks like gun violence is higher in places with big cities, like the coasts or around Chicago. I think there was another statistic somewhere that big cities also tend to vote slightly more in the democratic direction than republican. So maybe this is really more about lots of people in one place = more gun violence, not democrats = more gun violence?

You tend to get more liberal views in places where people mix and exchange ideas, such as cities, while you tend to get more conservative views where people don't tend to mix and interact with people who are different from themselves, such as rural areas.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
How about making a statement that is not incoherent rambling?

Never trust the police to protect your fundamental rights? Thats pretty coherent.

Sure it's coherent.

It's still nonsense, but it's coherent.

Or technically more democratic voters for Obama equals more murderers?

So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?

 Kanluwen wrote:
So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?

Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?

Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.

That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?

Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.

That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.

total bollox, he is simply providing a two maps, one with areas of higher gun crime vs lower gun crime
one with democrat voters vs conservative voters

the inferences are your own, and your blatent accusations of anyone stating that the voters themselves are the murderers is just silly, wrong, and trolling.

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?

Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.

That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.

total bollox, he is simply providing a two maps, one with areas of higher gun crime vs lower gun crime
one with democrat voters vs conservative voters

the inferences are your own, and your blatent accusations of anyone stating that the voters themselves are the murderers is just silly, wrong, and trolling.

There's no inferences.

Frazzled actually posted:

Or technically more democratic voters for Obama equals more murderers?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?

Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.

That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.

total bollox, he is simply providing a two maps, one with areas of higher gun crime vs lower gun crime
one with democrat voters vs conservative voters

the inferences are your own, and your blatent accusations of anyone stating that the voters themselves are the murderers is just silly, wrong, and trolling.

There's no inferences.

Frazzled actually posted:

Or technically more democratic voters for Obama equals more murderers?

notice the ? at the end of that sentence, that means its a question, not a declaration. From the rest of his post its also obvious he is doing it specifically to justapose the democrat mantra of "more guns causes more violence" with a similar statement, made in obvious jest, and said as a question, not a statement of fact or belief.

Now who's making inferences?

 easysauce wrote:
gangs, organized criminals, and repeat offenders are not "mythical boogeymen"

No, but they aren't an explanation to the high rate of murder, and really high rate of death by firearm in the US.

if I quote an article, where the DOJ finds that 80% of gun crime in chicago is due miniority gang activities,

Sure, but gun crime isn't deaths by gun.

Of course armed robberies are going to have a high correlation to gang activity. But the simple fact is deaths by gun don't correlate to gang activity.

maybe we should be tackling the root issues, like why are there so many gang members?

why is organized crime flourishing in certain cities?

Only if we accept that the cause of the 10,000 deaths every year is through gang issues. Which, of course, isn't fething true, as I established a couple of pages back in this thread.

And once we accept that isn't true. we kind of need to stop fething pretending otherwise.

why is gun crime going DOWN despite the # of owners, and guns going UP?

Actually, the number of gun owners is on a long term decline. It's just the absolute number of guns that is on the increase, driven by the average number of guns owned by each gun owner growing steadily.

And as for why gun crime is down... it's because crime is down. Not just in the US, but everywhere. Steady improvements in material wealth, and more effective policing, year on year, decade on decade, has produced a steady decline in crime rates. Sure in some countries, for a medium period you might see a flattening of rates or even a slight increase, but that's a specific local factor fighting against the overall, long term trend.

Guns... having them or not having them doesn't affect this. What it does affect, as you can see by the one stat where the US actually stands alone, is in gun murder. Because, whether you're a gang banger or some just some regular guy, the murder you commit is, purely statistically speaking, likely to be made in the heat of the moment, and not an action planned beforehand. And a person is far, far more likely to act on a stupid, spur of the moment decision when they have on hand a tool that makes killing a person much easier.

Now that doesn't automatically mean that guns have to be banned. But it is a thing that is simply fething true, and people need to stop pretending otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.

Reverse correlation. The cities with the worst levels of gun violence are the ones that are most likely to try and put some control on guns.

You can tell this by noting that before bringing in these laws those cities were already the ones with the worst rates of gun violence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
You mean this one?

Is this really telling anyone something they didn't already know?

I mean, note that it's gun violence, so the rate is going to be dominated by muggings, armed hold ups and the like. And is anyone out there really going to claim shock and surprise that major urban areas have higher rates of gun violence?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.

While this joke didn't really work at all, I've gotta say it's good to see you're in one of your 'making attacks at Democrats' phases. They're typically a lot more interesting than your 'complain about government in a vaguely libertarian way, while insisting that you're totally not a Republican' phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
notice the ? at the end of that sentence, that means its a question, not a declaration. From the rest of his post its also obvious he is doing it specifically to justapose the democrat mantra of "more guns causes more violence" with a similar statement, made in obvious jest, and said as a question, not a statement of fact or belief.

I've never really understood this thing people do... this argument by illiteracy thing. Where they attempt to make their point by straight up refusing to read a person's statement as everyone knows it is supposed to be read.

Just... fething don't pretend, because you know, and we all know fraz was trying to have a fun little dig at Democrats.

And if you really, really can't see what fraz was doing, maybe English isn't the language for you.