By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 13 Dead in Shooting in Thousand Oaks California

Nighthawk117 on 12 November 2018

SpokenTruth

Here's a simple way to answer your post:

Why is our Constitution considered a living document?

The U.S. Constitution is called a living document because it was created with the purpose of being able to grow and change (just like a living thing) with the changing needs of the country. Through the addition of amendments, the constitution is able to adapt in ways that are needed for the nation to succeed.

Through out time, the Constitution has been interpreted by many people; Presidents, Congress people, Judges, Justices, and ordinary citizens.

Last edited by Nighthawk117 - on 12 November 2018

Around the Network
outlawauron on 12 November 2018
sundin13 said:
outlawauron said:

The gun ban in Australia reduced the number of gun related deaths, but didn't have any measurable impact on the number homicides. 

While we cannot specifically equate the results to causal factors by simply looking at the homicide rate, looking at only correlations, this is objectively false.

Here is a chart showing Australia's homicide rate with a trend line:

The homicide rate was cut almost in half between 2013 and 1996. Feel free to make the argument that there was no causal link (if you can back it up with something), but looking at correlations (which is what this discussion has been focusing on), claiming Australia's homicide rate hasn't fallen since 1996 is demonstrably false.

The United States homicide rate has decreased at a very similar rate in the same time period. There's obviously no gun ban here, so I'm saying that it's decreased in line with the rest of the world. The same pattern is observable in every large 1st world country. Violent crimes are going down across the world.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

sundin13 on 12 November 2018
outlawauron said:
sundin13 said:

While we cannot specifically equate the results to causal factors by simply looking at the homicide rate, looking at only correlations, this is objectively false.

Here is a chart showing Australia's homicide rate with a trend line:

The homicide rate was cut almost in half between 2013 and 1996. Feel free to make the argument that there was no causal link (if you can back it up with something), but looking at correlations (which is what this discussion has been focusing on), claiming Australia's homicide rate hasn't fallen since 1996 is demonstrably false.

The United States homicide rate has decreased at a very similar rate in the same time period. There's obviously no gun ban here, so I'm saying that it's decreased in line with the rest of the world. The same pattern is observable in every large 1st world country. Violent crimes are going down across the world.

That doesn't really mean too much when the question is more about the rate of decline than the decline itself. If naturally the homicide rate would have dropped to 1.5 and with the firearm ban it dropped to 1.0, that is still a significant change. That is why I am saying that you can't really make any determinations based on the homicide rate alone.

There are also certain factors in, for example, the United States which aren't seen in Australia in relation to that drop. The United States had a large peak in crime from about 1970-1990. 1996 in the United States was the middle of a steep drop in homicide rates, which were largely returning to the normal after that large peak. In Australia, homicide rates were steady and fairly low for several decades before the mid '90s, so there wasn't really a spike to come down from. Further, the relative rarity of firearm crime in Australia before the ban makes it a fairly poor comparison point for the United States.

That said, I am not arguing that causal factors resulted in this decline, just that looking only at homicide rates will not really prove any point.

I should also add that I am not in favor of a policy similar to Australia's gun ban in the USA. I think it would be a significant overreach, and due to the differences in the two countries, I think the only things that it is really useful in showing is that the fear of a criminal haven without guns is likely unrealistic and severely overblown, and that restriction of legal firearms does impact the availability for criminals.



Cobretti2 on 12 November 2018
sundin13 said:
outlawauron said:

The United States homicide rate has decreased at a very similar rate in the same time period. There's obviously no gun ban here, so I'm saying that it's decreased in line with the rest of the world. The same pattern is observable in every large 1st world country. Violent crimes are going down across the world.

That doesn't really mean too much when the question is more about the rate of decline than the decline itself. If naturally the homicide rate would have dropped to 1.5 and with the firearm ban it dropped to 1.0, that is still a significant change. That is why I am saying that you can't really make any determinations based on the homicide rate alone.

There are also certain factors in, for example, the United States which aren't seen in Australia in relation to that drop. The United States had a large peak in crime from about 1970-1990. 1996 in the United States was the middle of a steep drop in homicide rates, which were largely returning to the normal after that large peak. In Australia, homicide rates were steady and fairly low for several decades before the mid '90s, so there wasn't really a spike to come down from. Further, the relative rarity of firearm crime in Australia before the ban makes it a fairly poor comparison point for the United States.

That said, I am not arguing that causal factors resulted in this decline, just that looking only at homicide rates will not really prove any point.

I should also add that I am not in favor of a policy similar to Australia's gun ban in the USA. I think it would be a significant overreach, and due to the differences in the two countries, I think the only things that it is really useful in showing is that the fear of a criminal haven without guns is likely unrealistic and severely overblown, and that restriction of legal firearms does impact the availability for criminals.

The other factor that you will notice if you go through that website on the other pages is that Aboriginal homicides bump up our numbers average.  Especially in domestic homicides. 

Stranger homicides is what we should really be looking at, that is the telling tale if a gun restriction worked. Which in our case it did have an impact. 



 

 

EricHiggin on 13 November 2018
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Probably because grenade launchers didn't exist back then,

Neither did just about any modern weapon back then.  What kind of argument was that?

 

 

 

This is the difference between a gun attack and a knife attack:

On April 29 in Taixing, Jiangsu, unemployed 47-year-old Xu Yuyuan went to Zhongxin Kindergarten and stabbed 28 students and two teachers after stabbing the security guard; most of the Taixing students were 4 years old. Everyone survived the attack.

31 total stabbed including 28 four year olds....and they all lived.

One where it would make sense if it wasn't cut up and spun. I never quite understand why one would want to do that and where idea's like that would come from.

Nice story. I've cherry picked too. They taste great fresh off the tree.



Around the Network
EricHiggin on 13 November 2018
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

One where it would make sense if it wasn't cut up and spun. I never quite understand why one would want to do that and where idea's like that would come from.

Nice story. I've cherry picked too. They taste great fresh off the tree.

Find me a gun attack where 28 people were shot and they all lived.  I'll wait.

WW1. WW2.



Jranation on 13 November 2018

Like someone said on Facebook. How can you expect America to change when they didnt do anything after Sandy Hook. After young kids and teachers gets killed.



Pocky Lover Boy! 

sundin13 on 13 November 2018
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Find me a gun attack where 28 people were shot and they all lived.  I'll wait.

WW1. WW2.

Mortality rate of gunshot wounds vs stab wounds:

Out of a study in Philadelphia, it was found that 33% of patients with gunshot wounds died of their wounds compared to 7.7% of patients with stab wounds. Another study found that with wounds to the heart, the mortality rate for gunshots was over twice as high as the mortality rate for stab wounds (24 vs 11%). Another study looked at wounds to the neck and found gunshot wounds were almost twice as likely to cause "significant cervical injury" (31 to 55%). This pattern is pretty consistent, with individuals dying of gunshot wounds roughly 2-3x more than those with stabbing wounds. It is worth noting that these figures typically look at outcomes after arrival at a hospital. Gunshot victims are also more likely to be pronounced on scene, which would further inflate these numbers meaning that there is a larger disparity in gunshot wounds than the data suggests.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1462634
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5210006/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188



EricHiggin on 13 November 2018
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

WW1. WW2.

Mortality rate of gunshot wounds vs stab wounds:

Out of a study in Philadelphia, it was found that 33% of patients with gunshot wounds died of their wounds compared to 7.7% of patients with stab wounds. Another study found that with wounds to the heart, the mortality rate for gunshots was over twice as high as the mortality rate for stab wounds (24 vs 11%). Another study looked at wounds to the neck and found gunshot wounds were almost twice as likely to cause "significant cervical injury" (31 to 55%). This pattern is pretty consistent, with individuals dying of gunshot wounds roughly 2-3x more than those with stabbing wounds. It is worth noting that these figures typically look at outcomes after arrival at a hospital. Gunshot victims are also more likely to be pronounced on scene, which would further inflate these numbers meaning that there is a larger disparity in gunshot wounds than the data suggests.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1462634
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5210006/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188

So other than the war stats, the rest are based on specific medical locations over specific periods of time? Are other medical centers better or worse at treating their patients? Do different locations have varying amounts of gun vs knife wounds? Is the time line of the studies long enough? Does it take into account what if there were no guns?

What about mortality rate of gun wounds vs motor vehicle wounds?



sundin13 on 13 November 2018
EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Mortality rate of gunshot wounds vs stab wounds:

Out of a study in Philadelphia, it was found that 33% of patients with gunshot wounds died of their wounds compared to 7.7% of patients with stab wounds. Another study found that with wounds to the heart, the mortality rate for gunshots was over twice as high as the mortality rate for stab wounds (24 vs 11%). Another study looked at wounds to the neck and found gunshot wounds were almost twice as likely to cause "significant cervical injury" (31 to 55%). This pattern is pretty consistent, with individuals dying of gunshot wounds roughly 2-3x more than those with stabbing wounds. It is worth noting that these figures typically look at outcomes after arrival at a hospital. Gunshot victims are also more likely to be pronounced on scene, which would further inflate these numbers meaning that there is a larger disparity in gunshot wounds than the data suggests.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1462634
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5210006/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188

So other than the war stats, the rest are based on specific medical locations over specific periods of time? Are other medical centers better or worse at treating their patients? Do different locations have varying amounts of gun vs knife wounds? Is the time line of the studies long enough? Does it take into account what if there were no guns?

What about mortality rate of gun wounds vs motor vehicle wounds?

I feel like you are just throwing things at the wall and seeing if anything sticks. Half of these questions are either irrelevant or ridiculous. I don't even know what you are going for. You seem to have done absolutely no work in bringing a rebuttal of any substance here. Like, you say "the rest are based on specific medical locations" when the first link I posted refers to all gunshot vs firearm wounds. Is the time line long enough? The first link was over a span of five years. Then you bring up the mortality rate of motor vehicle wounds? First of all, what? That is a hard left turn into "whatabout", but the mortality rate for car crashes is less than 1%.

Like, c'mon. Put a little effort in...