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

Forums - Politics Discussion - YouTube incident: 'Active shooter' at HQ in northern California

Insidb on 04 April 2018
irstupid said:
Insidb said:

I see you, NRA bot.

You do realize only like 5% of the gun owners in the US belong to the NRA, right?

You do realize that most pro-gun legislation lobbying in the USA is paid for by the NRA, right?



Around the Network
numberwang on 04 April 2018
CaptainExplosion said:
Insidb said:

You do realize that most pro-gun legislation lobbying in the USA is paid for by the NRA, right?

^This.

NRA spends peanuts compared to other groups like unions.

Between 1998 and 2016, the NRA spent $200 million, in total, on political activities.
American labor unions spent $1.7 billion in 2016 alone.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/labor-spent-billion-politics-2016/

John Oliver doesn't tell you these facts.



Lucca on 04 April 2018
irstupid said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

Yes, it does.

Since 2013, 305 school incidents related to firearms occurred in the US, around one a week.

From 1966 to 2012, the US was the country with the most mass shootings, 90, 72 more mass shootings than the second place, Philippines, that had 18.

Between 2000 and 2010, the US (population of 309 million people) had 27 school killings with multiple victims. During the same period, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Russia, Scotland, South Africa, South Korea, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago and Yemen (total population of 3.8 billion people), had 28.

It doesn't matter if the murder rate is lower or higher when compared to other countries, the fact is that it would surely be much lower with better gun control laws.

And how were those countries selected? Guising to prove someone point, they selected the countries with the lowest school shootings.

The article doesn't specify why those countries were selected, but the most probable reasons are:

1. Those countries represent different places around the world (Argentina and Brazil from South America; Australia from Oceania; Azerbaijan from the Caucasus; Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Russia and Scotland from different regions of Europe; Canada and US from North America; China, India, Israel, Japan, North Korea and Thailand from different regions of Asia; Guatemala from mainland Central America; Trinidad and Tobago from the Caribbean; Kenya, South Africa and Swaziland from different parts of Africa). All continents and regions are represented.

2. Those countries are big in population (I mean, 3.8 billion is basically half of the world's population) and relevant enough so they have data of school killings from 2000 to 2010. Analyzing countries such as Andorra or Vanuatu wouldn't make much sense since they have too few inhabitants.

irstupid said:

But look at a few posts before yours at the big write up. You can see that the average number of murders per year has increased in the UK as gun laws became more and more strict. Does correlation equal causation? If you guys are going to use that method, then I will.

We have to better analyze the facts:

1. That huge spike in 2002/2003 happened because of the uncovering of Dr. Harold Shipman's almost 200 victims, credited to those years even though they happened from 1975-1998. That's an anomaly and shouldn't be considered for the analysis of a society. Similar anomalies happened in the years of 2001 (58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry going to the UK), 2004 (21 dead in the Morecambe Bay cockling disaster) and 2006 (52 victims from the 7/7).

2. The homicide rates were already increasing steadily decades before the gun ban in 97. 

3. The spike happened years after the ban. In http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf">The British Handgun Ban Logic, Politics, and Effect, Colin Greenwood claims that "The whole process of confiscating virtually all legally held handguns took place between July 1997 and February 1998." But for 1998, 1999 and 2000 the rates stayed basically the same. The spike in 2001 seems to be completely normal, as it also happened a few times before, even without the gun control laws.

4. There were too few handguns for it to make any difference. In 1997, the population of the UK was of about 51 million people. 57,000 people handed in guns after the handgun prohibition. That means that 1.1% of the population had all the handguns in the UK. That's basically nothing.

5. The law actually made a difference in the percentage of homicides committed using firearms. While we don't have any data for 1997, in 2009 the percentage in the UK was of 6.6%, according to UNODOC's Homicides by firearm document. In the US, in 2010, that percentage is of 67.5%.

Last edited by Lucca - on 05 April 2018

B O I

COKTOE on 04 April 2018
CaptainExplosion said:
FIT_Gamer said:
Hey at least it's the first mass shooting this year where no one but the shooter has died. Silver lining.

She shot herself, so no silver lining. She could've been saved along with the others. -_-

Agreed. As it is, it's just another sad story.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

o_O.Q on 04 April 2018
Insidb said:
o_O.Q said:

 

that you had to compare subsections of the countries instead of  the whole country should tell you something, but then again i suppose once you buy the narrative that guns are the only problem in society you start putting blinders on

 

http://igeek.com/w/U.S._vs_U.K._-_Crime/Murder

 

 

Here’s a simple plot of the murder rates over time, for the U.S. (using the FBI’s UCR / Universal Crime Report) and U.K. (using their ONS / Office of National Statistics). And I overlay when they each enacted or removed gun controls. What you notice is:

  • If you look at the (the blue line): Each time the UK enacted or stiffened their gun control laws, they saw an increase in murder rates. Each new law, had no positive (and some negative) impact or an increase in murder rates. (Crime trends are even worse). (In the 1950’s they outlawed conceal and carry, in the 80’s it was shotguns, and in the late 90’s it was all pistols). So regardless of whether the UK has fewer murders than the US for cultural reasons, we know that gun control didn’t help the UK’s murder rate.
  • Next if you look at the (the red line): I overlaid (and adjusted) the U.S. murder rates with major gun control events. After JFK was shot, states and eventually the Fed (1968) passed all sorts of gun control laws — and what happened to our murder rates? They doubled from around 5 to 10 per 100K over the next decade, and they hovered there, despite all sorts of state and federal revisions, or more laws (30,000 different state/local/federal gun control laws were passed in total). There was no significant positive effects, and some observable negative ones in the U.S. due to our gun control laws.
  • Then in the late 80’s Florida passed “Must Issue” conceal and carry and castle doctrine laws were passed, and their crime/murder rates started falling noticeably. Many other states (in the South and Midwest) followed suit, with the same effects in their state murder rates, and eventually enough of those added up to start impacting the federal murder rates noticeably. Then the federal assault weapon ban expired — and if gun control worked, you’d expect an upward spike in murders, but murders trended down. Adding gun control had no positive effects, and removing them had no significant negative effects, in the U.S.!. So if you have the choice of tyranny or liberty, and there's no benefit to tyranny: opt for liberty.

Regardless of whether the UK has fewer murders than the US for cultural reasons, we know that gun control didn’t help the UK or US's murder rate. And in fact, seemed to have the opposite effect. Enacting them seemed to increase murders, and removing those allowed downward murder rates to continue.

 

Something to note is that Scotland and Ireland have higher murder rates than in England/Whales and the U.S. despite their gun control. So we know that gun control doesn’t work for Scotland and Ireland.

 

Conclusion

Anyone vaguely informed on gun control issues knows is that the U.S. does not have a gun problem.

  • Whites and Asian are highly responsible with guns, and have a lower murder rate than almost all of Europe and the OECD countries. We have a very specific problem: democrats, blacks and latino gang-members drag our murder and crime rates averages up.
  • The UK has a higher white murder rate, but they use clubs and knives rather than guns. Since I’m pretty sure most people don’t want to be stabbed or beaten to death, the important factor is whether you’re murdered or not (not the tool the murderer uses), right? 

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

So in the end, when it comes to trends:

  • increasing gun control and taking away gun owners liberty only resulted in higher crimes and murder rates in the UK.
  • In the U.S., removing those laws resulted in lowering of crime rates

Anyone that tells you otherwise is trying to prestidigitate the numbers, and baffle you with bullshit and fallacies -- not explain the numbers and show their work, as I just did.

I see you, NRA bot.

yeah fuck the facts and fuck reality right? and did you just call me a robot?



Around the Network
PwerlvlAmy on 04 April 2018

was funny to see how quickly the MSM changed the narrative once they found out it didnt fit their bullet points of usual shootings they like covering



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

PwerlvlAmy on 04 April 2018
o_O.Q said:
Insidb said:

I see you, NRA bot.

yeah fuck the facts and fuck reality right? and did you just call me a robot?

sadly that's how it usually goes. At least on social media. If you say anything the other side is against, you're labeled a ''bot'' by the leftist of the country, if you do this against the the ''right'' of the country then you're labeled a ''shill'' 



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

o_O.Q on 04 April 2018
the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

that you had to compare subsections of the countries instead of  the whole country should tell you something, but then again i suppose once you buy the narrative that guns are the only problem in society you start putting blinders on

I wasn't the one to first make the comparison.  

For the bold.  I don't believe that guns are the only problem with society.  I'm not even a supporter of banning guns.  Once again, please don't make such assumptions about what I believe.  

o_O.Q said:

http://igeek.com/w/U.S._vs_U.K._-_Crime/Murder

 

 

 

Nothing like cherry picking.  At the very least, the article admitted the cherry picking.  

First off, the gun control arguments are dubious using this chart.  Take when JFK was shot, it's literally in the middle of an increase.  It has the same slope on the left as the right.  Florida's conceal and carry permits affected the whole country by such a gigantic amount?  That doesn't seem odd at all?  Even the assault weapon ban expires, you can clearly see the trend goes up slightly before going down. 

Secondly, it apparently removed black crimes because there were more of them.  And then part of the article was dedicated to "not being racist to do that".  

Back to what I was saying about guns not being the only issue with society.  There's a lot of causes that lead to shootings.  So simply looking at one thing like gun control and trying to connect it to murder rates doesn't make sense.  Things like mental illness play an enormous factor.  Republican lawmakers have said similarly, and yet I still haven't seen them produce any solutions to fix it.  

Strangely the article tries to connect poor rural families and saying they have a lower murder rate than poor urban families.  Despite the fact that the cost of living in cities tends to be higher.  

 

cherry picking? you do understand what you're looking at right?

the entire point of the article is that despite there being gun control the rate of violent crime in the uk has been on a steady increase and that is has been above that of the united states for decades now 



Insidb on 04 April 2018
o_O.Q said:
Insidb said:

I see you, NRA bot.

yeah fuck the facts and fuck reality right? and did you just call me a robot?

I called this obviously biased study biased, because the author lack the wits to hide their agenda.

That being the case, the study's author might as well be an NRA bot.



Insidb on 04 April 2018
PwerlvlAmy said:
o_O.Q said:

yeah fuck the facts and fuck reality right? and did you just call me a robot?

sadly that's how it usually goes. At least on social media. If you say anything the other side is against, you're labeled a ''bot'' by the leftist of the country, if you do this against the the ''right'' of the country then you're labeled a ''shill'' 

You must have missed this part, where the author screams out their agenda and obvious bias:

"Conclusion

Anyone vaguely informed on gun control issues knows is that the U.S. does not have a gun problem."