strigori Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I did some reading on his group's website. That was enough of that. Numbers, and news stories selected to present a certain argument. Many things are used in a vacuum, or fail to take into account changes in law and classifications, and reporting. And presents no info on the larger scale of human history as a backdrop either. Violent crime rates up world wide, so the media becomes #1 at fault No inclusion on the fact that what is considered violent crime has changed across his timeline, and people are much more prone to reporting it, and police are more apt to arrest. The fact is that humanity is a very violent species. Always has been and always will be. The 'media' didn't desensitize people in centuries past where there was no real media, and yet there was violence through out. I would argue that packing people tighter together, and placing stress (from all sorts of sources) on them is your #1 cause. Link to comment
walksalone Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american... I notice you never hear any of the politicians, or media types, even saying what I've mentioned before, because it makes sense? Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american... I notice you never hear any of the politicians, or media types, even saying what I've mentioned before, because it makes sense? Most of them are criminals. Link to comment
walksalone Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american... I notice you never hear any of the politicians, or media types, even saying what I've mentioned before, because it makes sense? Most of them are criminals. winner winner chicken dinner Link to comment
lo country Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american... I notice you never hear any of the politicians, or media types, even saying what I've mentioned before, because it makes sense? Much in line with the current immigration policy. Use limited resources to deport those illegal aliens with criminal convictions or those that pose a threat to the US ie validated gang members, drug traffickers etc........ Use our limited resources to get guns out of the hands of criminals. Increase the penalty of being a convicted felon and possessing a firearm. Simply cross reference permits with NCIC. Would it be a labor intensive task? Absolutely, but wouldn't this be worth the time if we were trying to really stop violent crime? Look at Chicago, 500 murders this year. How about spending resources to go after the gang members doing this. You know, proactive enforcement at the problem. Link to comment
strigori Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american... I notice you never hear any of the politicians, or media types, even saying what I've mentioned before, because it makes sense? Much in line with the current immigration policy. Use limited resources to deport those illegal aliens with criminal convictions or those that pose a threat to the US ie validated gang members, drug traffickers etc........ Use our limited resources to get guns out of the hands of criminals. Increase the penalty of being a convicted felon and possessing a firearm. Simply cross reference permits with NCIC. Would it be a labor intensive task? Absolutely, but wouldn't this be worth the time if we were trying to really stop violent crime? Look at Chicago, 500 murders this year. How about spending resources to go after the gang members doing this. You know, proactive enforcement at the problem. I don't think it would be that labor intensive. A piece of software can generate a list of cross references, and have someone then double check the list to avoid hassling someone with the same name as a criminal (another good reason to avoid naming a kid John Smith or the like) We need to do more proactive policing, but that means convincing people that they want to spend more tax money on it. And lately most communities have been cutting budgets for police departments. At some point people need to figure out that if you want things done, you need to pay for it. Link to comment
lo country Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american... I notice you never hear any of the politicians, or media types, even saying what I've mentioned before, because it makes sense? Much in line with the current immigration policy. Use limited resources to deport those illegal aliens with criminal convictions or those that pose a threat to the US ie validated gang members, drug traffickers etc........ Use our limited resources to get guns out of the hands of criminals. Increase the penalty of being a convicted felon and possessing a firearm. Simply cross reference permits with NCIC. Would it be a labor intensive task? Absolutely, but wouldn't this be worth the time if we were trying to really stop violent crime? Look at Chicago, 500 murders this year. How about spending resources to go after the gang members doing this. You know, proactive enforcement at the problem. I don't think it would be that labor intensive. A piece of software can generate a list of cross references, and have someone then double check the list to avoid hassling someone with the same name as a criminal (another good reason to avoid naming a kid John Smith or the like) We need to do more proactive policing, but that means convincing people that they want to spend more tax money on it. And lately most communities have been cutting budgets for police departments. At some point people need to figure out that if you want things done, you need to pay for it. Agree 100%. Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 gun control: a very biased piece and it isn't even FOX NEWS, okay it's ABC http://www.facebook....200262564797027 Link to comment
Roark Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 gun control: a very biased piece and it isn't even FOX NEWS, okay it's ABC http://www.facebook....200262564797027 Stossel is the man. Link to comment
Fuzzy Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Pretty funny if these guys are right... http://news.yahoo.com/gun-groups-predict-assault-weapons-ban-fail-congress-024549380.html The winners will be the gun retailers and gun makers as they have made a killin' (no pun intended) on the recent flood of people buying assault rifles and other various guns. Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Maybe we should ask for an examination of BHO's investment portfolio??? hmmmmmmm. insider info maybe I refuse to buy during these panic mode sales events. Everything is toooooo expensive. A AR-15 lower(the serial#part) are anywhere from $50 to 150 higher than in November. noobs heh heh Link to comment
Junior Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. Link to comment
Junior Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 http://www.npr.org/b...ates-gun-debate ]Art Kellermann was raised in eastern Tennessee, where his father taught him how to shoot a long gun when he was 10 years old. Kellermann grew up to become an emergency room doctor — and a target for gun-rights groups when he started asking questions like, "If a gun kept in a home was used, who did it shoot, and what were the consequences?"[/size]Kellermann found people turned those guns on themselves and others in the house far more often than on intruders. "In other words, a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense," he says. Kellermann says the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocates leaned on his then-employer, Emory University, to stop the research. That didn't work. So, he says, "they turned to a softer target, which was the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], the organization that was funding much of this work. And although gun injury prevention research was never more than a tiny percentage of the CDC's research budget, it was enough to bring them under the fire of the NRA." I also find it very interesting that suddenly republicans are worried about mental illness. Yet the most frequently untreated mentally ill are homeless and poor... but the same group votes against healthcare for these very people. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Can someone explain to me what we are doing to figure out why these people decide to take a gun and kill innocent people? Let's say we put a ban on assualt weapons and magazines that hold over 5 bullets. Ok....so....someone can take a gun and kill 5 people before they have to reload. OR, they take two guns and kill 10 people. The motivation is still there for some reason for these people to do what they do. Until we figure that out, we will continue to have these tragedies. Link to comment
Junior Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Can someone explain to me what we are doing to figure out why these people decide to take a gun and kill innocent people? Let's say we put a ban on assualt weapons and magazines that hold over 5 bullets. Ok....so....someone can take a gun and kill 5 people before they have to reload. OR, they take two guns and kill 10 people. The motivation is still there for some reason for these people to do what they do. Until we figure that out, we will continue to have these tragedies. So until we know ALL of the steps we need to take, we should damn sure not take ANY steps? Link to comment
Recommended Posts