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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21370910

I'm not sure what you think that shows, it dos NOT show what you initially claimed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
We don't have muslims blowing stuff up, either. In fact, most of the people blowing stuff up/setting stuff on fire etc. are white, non-muslim, neo-nazis. Go figure.

Wackos are wackos no matter skin tone or BS ideology. I haven't heard much about European governments caving to the Neo Nazis for fear of offending them so I didn't figure they were the same level of threat as the Muslim terrorists to whom your governments seem loath to allow offense based upon the plethora of laws regarding the publication of materials that put a negative spin on the actions andor habits of Muslims or Arabs. My apologies for not picking on the right wackos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkLink wrote:

*I'm just pointing this out to illustrate that poverty and racial issues are far more closely tied with violence than gun ownership probably ever will be.

Very true. In America we don't have the social safety net they have in European countries. W simply can't afford it since we have been protecting Europe from itself for the last 50 plus years. After all, there isn't a European nation with a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so they can afford to keep the poor from being desperate enough to commit crimes. But that's a good thing since a militarized Europe managed to start a war every 20 years or so, eventually dragging the world into a couple of their little dust ups until we took their toys away and made them play nice. Relative world peace in exchange for a large number of people below the poverty line here in the US. Probably worth the trade in the long run. The number of crime related deaths in the US is nothing compared to the body count of WWI and WWII.

Of course they have a problem with bored teens committing crimes for something to do, but I think that's a problem everywhere. Something about the mixing of hormones and affluence that makes for increased stupidity.

Of course it's not just poverty that leads to criminal activity. The problem is single mother households with multiple children. Not divorced mothers with fathers still in the picture, that's a whole different batch of sociological nightmare, but the "I'm not sure who the baby daddy is but I'm going to raise them on my own, just like Madonna!" That kind of dumb buttishness needs to be addressed. If you interview prison inmates you will find the vast majority were raised in single mother households. While exemptions to the rule exist the majority of children born to single mothers are pretty much screwed for life. To be blunt, the mother should have aborted the pregnancy and waited until she could raise a child in a healthy two parent household I say two parent. not man and woman. Kids would be better off raised by a gay couple than a single mother.

That 's why I think not only should abortions be free but women should be paid $1,000 for having an abortion. It would be cheaper in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.

In the early years of my locksmith career I sought out criminals to talk with them about how they did what they did. It was easy enough to find them and get them to talk. They aren't very bright after all. I wanted to determine the best ways to keep them out of homes and businesses and I figured developing a criminal eye would be a good idea. I found the thing they feared most; more than alarms, more than deadbolts, more than cops and more than dogs. They fear a homeowner with a gun. I've never found any other group of people to be so supportive of strict gun control legislation. I have to say it firmed up my stand on personal gun ownership more than any other argument or statistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
More restricted guns means that only those who are really dedicated criminals use guns (that is, either building them themselves or stealing from police etc.), and while that is of course bad, it at least means you won't risk being shot for chasing after the guy who just grabbed your bag.

Bag snatchers as you call them are not going to carry a gun. No matter how easy or hard it is to get one. Even an idiot is capable of rudimentary risk analysis. Purse snatching ranks rather low on the misdemeanor/felony scale, the punishment is less time than drug possession with intent to distribute. However if the snatcher has a gun in his possession when they snatch the purse it shoots up to a more serious crime. Which means more jail time if caught and a greater chance of being made an example of by a DA who is up for re-election. The criminal isn't going to get in a shoot out with the police over a purse snatching because even nick a cop with a slug and the criminal can expect to fall down every flight of stairs from the site of his arrest to the jail and one of those "falls" might just be fatal...

Guns get carried when the criminal needs to or may need to threaten someone. Such as a more serous home invasion, especially when they expect to have to get someone to open a safe or locked drawer. The level of that crime is already high so the gun charge doesn't make it much worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Bringing in laws that require all weapons to be securely locked up, in a gun safe which the child has no access to (so probably number code rather than key in case the key is misplaced), when not in use might.

But reality fails to back up your claim. Here in South Dakota we have no laws regarding storage of firearms. Children have ready access to all manner of guns. My son has access to three modern guns and a large collection of antique replicas. My brother's kids can lay hands on any one of a dozen shotguns and twice that number of rifles and pistols. His home is not unusual for our state. Yet we have zero school shootings. While cities where strict storage laws are in place have school shootings.

No matter how you slice it, more laws do not equal more safety. Violent people will do violent things. Take away guns and they use knives, baseball bats, explosives or vehicles. You simply cannot legislate away bad people.

Well, we should have seen it coming. The woman has her defender in the Huffington Post. Mike the Gun Guy, no less.

This is a special sort of stupid you just can't make up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/new-video-tells-the-truth-about-guns_b_6390442.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Mike Weisser wrote:A New Video Tells the Truth About Guns and Some Folks Don't Like It



There's a new video floating around the Internet called " Gun Violence - PSA" that's making quite a stir. Created by Rejina Cincic, it follows a teenage boy who takes an unlocked pistol out of his mother's bureau drawer, slips it into his backpack, walks into his class at school and, when there are no other kids in the room, plops the gun down on the teacher's desk and says, "I don't feel safe with this at home." And that's it.

From viewer reactions, you would think that the NRA had posted a video telling gun owners to turn in all their guns. I have never seen such vitriol, such anger and such cheap and snarky comments directed at any statement about gun ownership, and once the hoi polloi weighed in with their usual invectives, the pro-gun propaganda media known as the Washington Times came forth with their usual, nonsensical conclusion that the video "encourages" children to commit crimes, such as stealing the gun and then taking the weapon onto school property. The Citizen's Committee for the Right to Bear Arms, which is the other website belonging to the successful mail-order company known as the 2nd Amendment Foundation, declared that the video depicted six or perhaps seven different crimes.

Know what crime wasn't depicted in the video? The crime that would have occurred if that same kid had taken his mother's gun to school, walked into a classroom and opened fire at other students and adults. How do you think that Jaylen Fryberg got his hands on the gun he used to kill four students at Marysville High School on October 24? And it really didn't matter how many other crimes Fryberg committed that day in order to bring the gun into the school because after shooting the four other kids, he then used the gun to kill himself.

This PSA video has provoked such an intense reaction from the pro-gun community because it strikes directly at their most sacred cow, namely, the idea that guns in homes make us more safe. The gun industry has been tirelessly promoting this crap for the last 20 years ever since they noticed that the traditional reason for owning guns -- sport shooting and hunting -- were beginning to fade away. But if you can make people believe that the protection afforded by a gun far outweighs the risk of that weapon lying around, you've created a new and unending market for guns.

Let's take a minute and look at some numbers about whether guns really keep us safe from violent crime. The gun industry loves to tout the fact that there has been a 50 percent increase in gun sales while violent crime rates have declined by about the same amount over the last 20 years. The only problem with this bromide is that 95 percent of the decline took place between 1994-2003, while the number of guns bought by civilians began to show major increases after 2004.

If that argument doesn't work, let's try another one. According to the FBI, the number of felonies that were prevented by what is known as justifiable homicide using a gun runs around 225 per year. Meanwhile, the number of non-justifiable gun homicides sits above 10,000 annually -- wow, that's quite a safety record for guns, right? As for using a gun to prevent a crime, the NRA publishes a listing of such events on its Armed Citizen website, and the numbers run between 60-75 per year.

I happen to think that Stop Gun Violence is the best gun PSA I have ever seen. It says what we all know, namely, that a gun in the home is a safety risk and an unlocked gun is a much greater risk. I notice that all the critics who were busily counting up the felonies depicted in the film forgot to mention that in most states, leaving an unlocked gun around is not a crime at all. Shouldn't we be talking about that issue rather than attempting to discredit a teen-age boy who showed a lot more common sense than the owner of that gun?

The last paragraph is just full of epic fail

I notice that all the critics who were busily counting up the felonies depicted in the film forgot to mention that in most states, leaving an unlocked gun around is not a crime at all.

Well Einstein, maybe they're not mentioning it for that exact ing reason. Its not a crime to leave a gun around the house, but it is a crime to steal a gun, conceal carry it onto school grounds, and take possession of a stolen gun.

Shouldn't we be talking about that issue rather than attempting to discredit a teen-age boy who showed a lot more common sense than the owner of that gun?

He suggests we totally ignore multiple felonies and threats to personal safety in favor of the rather nebulous threat of a gun just being in a house.

Truly this person should be removed from the genepool.

This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation

That's not necessarily true.

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation

That's not necessarily true.

It's often the case, though. It's certainly the situation with my firearm.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation

So? If you're concerned about defending your home you can keep your gun next to you at all times while you're in the house. Having it locked up while you're gone (the time when there's the biggest risk of theft and/or accidents) doesn't interfere with your home defense plans at all.

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation

That's not necessarily true.

It's often the case, though. It's certainly the situation with my firearm.

Well, yes, that's true too. I'm more referring to some of the quick open safes with biometric capabilities and things like that. And that 5 seconds isn't necessarily life/death, although I do admit that it could be, it isn't necessarily so.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Bringing in laws that require all weapons to be securely locked up, in a gun safe which the child has no access to (so probably number code rather than key in case the key is misplaced), when not in use might.

But reality fails to back up your claim. Here in South Dakota we have no laws regarding storage of firearms. Children have ready access to all manner of guns. My son has access to three modern guns and a large collection of antique replicas. My brother's kids can lay hands on any one of a dozen shotguns and twice that number of rifles and pistols. His home is not unusual for our state. Yet we have zero school shootings. While cities where strict storage laws are in place have school shootings.

No matter how you slice it, more laws do not equal more safety. Violent people will do violent things. Take away guns and they use knives, baseball bats, explosives or vehicles. You simply cannot legislate away bad people.

And how many suicides by firearm? How many accidental discharges resulting in death?

Wonder if they think a trigger lock falls under "Unsafe" to them......

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How many accidental discharges resulting in death?

Far fewer than accidental deaths in auto accidents or poisoning. In fact so few it does not make the top 10 for most age groups in the US (it is number 10 for 10-14 year olds with 22 deaths).



Less than 700 deaths by accidental discharge in 2009. Less than 900 in 2001 (where stats below seem to come from).




from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death


And though each accidental death is tragic and sad to the family and friends of the deceased, thinking we need additional legislation and enforcement for the millions of legal gun owners due to less than 1000 accidental deaths a year is silly.

Though if you were to look at the first graphic you would see that intentional suicide with a firearm ranks quite high.

Some of those could also be prevented by adding an obstacle to actually carrying out the act as many suicides come from convenience.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Though if you were to look at the first graphic you would see that intentional suicide with a firearm ranks quite high.

Some of those could also be prevented by adding an obstacle to actually carrying out the act as many suicides come from convenience.

'Some' could be prevented. Got a percentage or number or evidence? 'Some' would just use another means. Mental health is the issue there, not the means. Legislating the means is a huge failure in addressing the real issue.

Mike Weisser wrote:
Know what crime wasn't depicted in the video? The crime that would have occurred if that same kid had taken his mother's gun to school, walked into a classroom and opened fire at other students and adults. How do you think that Jaylen Fryberg got his hands on the gun he used to kill four students at Marysville High School on October 24? And it really didn't matter how many other crimes Fryberg committed that day in order to bring the gun into the school because after shooting the four other kids, he then used the gun to kill himself.

I'm enjoying that the only two outcomes that the author can possibly comprehend of the situation is that the kid is either such a pinkboy that he gets rid of his mommy's gun behind her back "because scary", or this unstable suicidal "troubled angel" who, having beheld a gun, will immediately take it up and kill a bunch of kids and himself. Nope. Apparently those are the only two outcomes when you have guns around.

Were I a teenager, I'd be insulted as feth.

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Though if you were to look at the first graphic you would see that intentional suicide with a firearm ranks quite high.

Some of those could also be prevented by adding an obstacle to actually carrying out the act as many suicides come from convenience.

'Some' could be prevented. Got a percentage or number or evidence? 'Some' would just use another means. Mental health is the issue there, not the means. Legislating the means is a huge failure in addressing the real issue.

Well, when the UK introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol which could be sold in a single transaction we saw suicide by overdose drop by around 765 deaths over a period of ten years from what was predicted by the trend before the law was passed.

The simple barrier of having to go to multiple shops or queue multiple times to get a lethal dose meant less people died.

Yes, mental health is the main issue. However adding that little extra barrier between them and an easy method of killing themselves gets that little extra time which can make all the difference. It can mean the difference between someone killing themselves or picking up the phone and calling the Samaritans or some other helpline or their doctor or whatever.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Well, when the UK introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol which could be sold in a single transaction we saw suicide by overdose drop by around 765 deaths over a period of ten years from what was predicted by the trend before the law was passed.

The simple barrier of having to go to multiple shops or queue multiple times to get a lethal dose meant less people died.

Yes, mental health is the main issue. However adding that little extra barrier between them and an easy method of killing themselves gets that little extra time which can make all the difference. It can mean the difference between someone killing themselves or picking up the phone and calling the Samaritans or some other helpline or their doctor or whatever.

How were the overall suicide/unintentional overdose rates after the change. While suicide by overdose dropped by 765 (which really also needs a percentage difference to mean anything) did the actual suicide rate drop? Where people just throwing themselves under buses, or shooting themselves, instead. Were unintentional overdoses cut by this measure?

Putting a small barrier may just divert rather than prevent and may just divert into less predictable, observable and/or controllable behaviours.

The issue here is a simple one.

Which is morally superior?

#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.

#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.

I chose #2. How about you?

I'm sure the kid would feel great about stealing his parents' firearm and turning it in if he were to get home from school to find his mother lying on the kitchen floor, raped and beaten because she couldn't find her defensive handgun.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
The issue here is a simple one.

Which is morally superior?

#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.

#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.

I chose #2. How about you?

Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
The issue here is a simple one.

Which is morally superior?

#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.

#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.

I chose #2. How about you?

Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

And that is a result of her own negligence. Not seeing how Constitutional Rights are to be tossed aside due to peoples own stupidity. If that was the case, the 1st would have been tossed ages ago.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
The issue here is a simple one.

Which is morally superior?

#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.

#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.

I chose #2. How about you?

Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

As already shown, accidental deaths due to firearms are VERY rare (note that in the 1-4 age category accidental gunshot is not in the top 10 causes of injury deaths, and the tenth had an order of magnitude less cases than drowning) . But go ahead and create scenarios without regards to facts.

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
The issue here is a simple one.

Which is morally superior?

#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.

#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.

I chose #2. How about you?

Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

As already shown, accidental deaths due to firearms are VERY rare (note that in the 1-4 age category accidental gunshot is not in the top 10 causes of injury deaths, and the tenth had an order of magnitude less cases than drowning) . But go ahead and create scenarios without regards to facts.

He's referring to a story posted a little while ago.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
The issue here is a simple one.

Which is morally superior?

#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.

#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.

I chose #2. How about you?

Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

As already shown, accidental deaths due to firearms are VERY rare (note that in the 1-4 age category accidental gunshot is not in the top 10 causes of injury deaths, and the tenth had an order of magnitude less cases than drowning) . But go ahead and create scenarios without regards to facts.

He's referring to a story posted a little while ago.

Aye
Let's keep the thread separated lol

 djones520 wrote:


He's referring to a story posted a little while ago.

My point stands, attempting to legislate away others' rights due to one in a million May Happen scenarios is wrong.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

I take it you are pro-rapist then?

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?

Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.

I take it you are pro-rapist then?

Hey, in my view the woman shouldn't need to defend herself from the rapist as she shouldn't be at risk from rape in the first place.

Why are you supporting the rapists by saying women need guns for protection? Why do they have to choose between walking around with a gun and being raped? Does that mean any woman without a gun was asking to be raped?

See how pointless that line of argument is?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hey, in my view the woman shouldn't need to defend herself from the rapist as she shouldn't be at risk from rape in the first place.

Certainly. How exactly do you plan to make that happen? Mandate all men get castrated? Seems like the line you're following. Take away guns because a few people misuse them. Since a few men misuse their "equipment" we should take that away too.

Stop with the 'you support rape' 'no you support rape' line of argument. That is disingenuous, rude and breaks dakka's rules. That way lies warnings.

Hhhhmmmmm
Men are predators. Women are vindictive so they aim lower and hope to hit a middle extremity. My wife knee capped a "wanna be rapist" way before I met her