Gun Issues page 45

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

I don’t think I saw a single source or label on that graph. Does that raise any red flags for anyone else?

 
Flag Post

It was also hosted by image shack. You can often backtrack an image to its article from the url. Looks like Galdos ripped this one from somewhere and hosted it on his own image shack account. Means it is going to be impossible to find out where it came from.

 
Flag Post

The data seems to be identical to what is posted in this report on page 27.

 
Flag Post
http://guardianofvalor.com/hall-of-shame/

"A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment
Posted on January 29, 2013 by Bulldog1

I received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as this is Active and Retired members.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”."
 
Flag Post

Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged.

Not so big on the whole Freedom Of Expression angle of that “greatest document in human history”. Hard to take their fear of enemies foreign and domestic compromising the constitution seriously when that is exactly what they are.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

wow look at the spike during the “assault” weapons ban

This.

 
Flag Post

So many times I have heard how the UK, England in particular has so much less crime than the United States. Yet only a couple of sources are used and a true picture isn’t used. While wondering the internet I came across a video that really lays out the comparison of one country over another. You can watch it or not, but I think if you are going to continue to through the UK up to America, you should use all of the data, not just what suits your needs for an argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0

England’s take on banning firearms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUEk57kpnVg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

So many times I have heard how the UK, England in particular has so much less crime than the United States. Yet only a couple of sources are used and a true picture isn’t used. While wondering the internet I came across a video that really lays out the comparison of one country over another. You can watch it or not, but I think if you are going to continue to through the UK up to America, you should use all of the data, not just what suits your needs for an argument.

That may be what you hear but it’s certainly not what you’ve been told.

At the risk of repeating old ground… The UK has much lower per capita rates of homicide & ‘gun crime’ (and doubtless other things) than the US, The UK has higher rates of things like burglary and, from memory, assault.

Only a couple of sources are used? Well, yeah… all our crime stats are centralised to the Home Office (in the same way yours appear to be collated by the FBI).


Having watched the first of the two videos so far I have to wonder what, exactly, it is you’re trying to say… the guy in the video says the same things that have been said to you here before…

The US has a ‘horrendous’ per capita violent crime & homicide rate, although falling recently, with natural variations around the country (after all the ‘headline’ rate is an average… so you’d expect some areas to be significantly above that rate, and others below).

Interestingly, I note, he also uses the same sources that you appear to have complained about above.

He acknowledges that we (like most other civilised countries) kill less people, intentionally, than the US does.

But, when he raises the spectre of ‘violent crime’… (and has been explained several times previously), he’s comparing apples with oranges.

Yes, some ‘violent crimes’ are categorised as such in both countries. No, not everything that is recorded as a ‘violent crime’ here would be considered as such there.

e.g. he FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”


I got 2 mins into the second video, and I really can’t be arsed to watch the rest of an ‘opinion piece’. I will, however, address the main points raised at the beginning…

1. People were protesting the imminent hunting with dogs ban. People continued to protest after the introduction of the ban. The government recently promised a free vote on the issue (with a view to repealing the ban).

2. We, like you, only have the ‘rights’ permitted us as laid down in law. The HRA in our case, the Constitution in yours. Both can be altered by the appropriate legal process (and have been previously) so all of our rights are transient… want to preserve a right then fight for it, legally.

 
Flag Post

Actually Don, I have been told that before, many times. What the guy in the video is trying to say is you, being ant-gun, are using limited information on the crime statistics and trying to narrow it to just firearms rather than violent crime in general. You are right that we have more homicides, but if you include all violent crime, the Uk far outshines the USA in violent crime. He further demonstrates that in the last 20 years, our firearm homicides have dropped to half of what they were. This is a 20 year trend and they are still dropping. You and others are taking a few mass murders and blowing them completely out of proportion in order to advance your desires for an eventual elimination of firearms in the USA, like you have pretty much done in your own country. This is shown in the second video. I wish your people well on overturning the ban, but I feel your government might be scamming them.

Our rights are enumerated in our Constitution and not just laid down by law which can easily be overturned. You can see the hell Obama is going through in changing our government into a nanny state. He is even having to fight his own party now. I believe our Constitution is much harder to change than yours. We are fighting for our rights. In fact, we will be using legal means until they are no longer viable. After that, we may be using other means.

 
Flag Post

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

Parents should be the ones to stop their kids from playing violent video games or watching violent movies if it concerns them. This shouldn’t be a government decision. Hollywood and game developers have a right to put whatever they want in their games- it’s called the first amendment. It comes right before the second amendment these people are defending. Guess they skipped over it. Besides, studies have shown that whether or not violent media causes aggressive behavior depends more on the person than the violent game/movie itself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pokarnor:

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

Parents should be the ones to stop their kids from playing violent video games or watching violent movies if it concerns them. This shouldn’t be a government decision. Hollywood and game developers have a right to put whatever they want in their games- it’s called the first amendment. It comes right before the second amendment these people are defending. Guess they skipped over it. Besides, studies have shown that whether or not violent media causes aggressive behavior depends more on the person than the violent game/movie itself.

OR
Advertisers have a right to put whatever they want in their ads, it’s called the 1st Amend, it comes right before the 2nd. OR, even more succinct….it is AT THE TOP of the list.

BUT, a society—via its represenative form of GOVERNING—has a right to set forth terms by which those w/in said society will conduct their affairs. If a society truly wishes to minimize violence w/in itself….perhaps it should hold view of it as being unworthy of meirt rather than venture to profit from its pandering. What will be next….Roman Gladiators?

 
Flag Post

What will be next….Roman Gladiators?

Are you comparing imaginary violence to gladiator matches?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pokarnor:

What will be next….Roman Gladiators?

Are you comparing imaginary violence to gladiator matches?

I’m NOT comparing them to a Betty Crocker bake-off.

But then, do I really have to make a case for the OBVIOUS

Just how hard is it for us to see that CHILDREN ARE GREATLY INFLUENCED by the things they NEWLY encounter as they grow?
We typically call that: LEARNING.
Or, “monkey see,,,monkey do.”http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/effect-professional-wrestling-viewership-children

Why do ya suppose they often say: Now kids, these are professionally trained XXXXXX….DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME?

So, NO…it doesn’t have to be video games.
It can be other venues-0-violence that can have some very negative results when, not only exposed TO, BUT directly targeted AT kids.

We don’t allow kids into porn shows…..
just saying…..

 
Flag Post

Again, that’s why parents should keep these things away from impressionable children. Few violent games are targeted at minors specifically, and when they are they’re targeted at teenagers who at least can distinguish fictional worlds from reality and have an understanding of right and wrong. Take Call of Duty for example (which I’m using due to it’s immense popularity). A LARGE portion of its playerbase consists of young children. And yet, not a single one of its ads target children specifically- their launch trailer for their most recent game even used a song from 1981, which young children definitely wouldn’t be able to recognize. Every single box has a big “M for Mature” rating on it warning from the ESRB saying it’s intended for adults. This is a problem with irresponsible parenting, not with violent games being targeted at children.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Actually Don, I have been told that before, many times. What the guy in the video is trying to say is you, being ant-gun, are using limited information on the crime statistics and trying to narrow it to just firearms rather than violent crime in general. You are right that we have more homicides, but if you include all violent crime, the Uk far outshines the USA in violent crime. He further demonstrates that in the last 20 years, our firearm homicides have dropped to half of what they were. This is a 20 year trend and they are still dropping. You and others are taking a few mass murders and blowing them completely out of proportion in order to advance your desires for an eventual elimination of firearms in the USA, like you have pretty much done in your own country. This is shown in the second video. I wish your people well on overturning the ban, but I feel your government might be scamming them.

Our rights are enumerated in our Constitution and not just laid down by law which can easily be overturned. You can see the hell Obama is going through in changing our government into a nanny state. He is even having to fight his own party now. I believe our Constitution is much harder to change than yours. We are fighting for our rights. In fact, we will be using legal means until they are no longer viable. After that, we may be using other means.

1. Not here you haven’t, at least not since I’ve been participating in these threads.

2. Since when have I been anti-gun? In my lifetime I’ve owned and shot both pistols and rifles, travelling extensively to do so. If I still had the money and the time I still could (bar the pistols, of course) because, contrary to the rhetoric, guns are not ‘banned’ just rather heavily regulated.

3. You’re not listening… we, well I, am not ‘cherry picking’ statistics… you and the chap in that video are deliberately mis-interpreting the data to show that the ‘UK far outshines the US in violent crime’. As mentioned above, on your side of the pond, ‘violent crime’ is recorded as “murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault”…

If you want an accurate comparison you either include in your numbers all the extra things we record as ‘violent crime’ OR only count our incidences of those same four offences. For your edification, some of the list of ‘violent crimes’ (recorded as such, rather than necessarily being violent) here include and this

Murder
Attempted Murder
Conspiracy to Murder
Threats to Kill
Manslaughter
Infanticide
Intentional Destruction of a Viable Unborn Child
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
Causing Death by Careless Driving under the Influence of Drink or Drugs
Cause or Allow Death or Serious Physical Harm to Child or Vulnerable Person
Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving
Causing Death by Driving: Unlicensed, Disqualified or Uninsured Drivers
Corporate Manslaughter
Assault with Intent to cause Serious Harm
Endangering Life
Harassment
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Harassment
Assault with injury
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Assault with injury
Public Fear, Alarm or Distress
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Public Fear, Alarm or Distress
Possession of Firearms with Intent
Possession of Firearms Offences
Possession of Other Weapons
Possession of Article with Blade or Point
Cruelty to Children/Young Persons
Child Abduction
Procuring Illegal Abortion
Causing Death by Aggravated Vehicle Taking
Assault without Injury on a Constable
Assault without Injury
Racially or Religiously Aggravated Assault without Injury
Sexual Assault on a Male aged 13 and over
Sexual Assault on a Male Child under 13
Rape of a Female aged 16 and over
Rape of a Female Child under 16
Rape of a Female Child under 13
Rape of a Male aged 16 and over
Rape of a Male Child under 16
Rape of a Male Child under 13
Sexual Assault on a Female aged 13 and over
Sexual Assault on a Female Child under 13
Sexual Activity involving a Child under 13
Causing Sexual Activity without Consent
Sexual Activity involving a Child under 16
Incest or Familial Sexual Offences
Exploitation of Prostitution
Soliciting for the Purpose of Prostitution
Sexual Activity etc with a Person with a Mental Disorder
Abuse of Children through Prostitution and Pornography
Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation
Abuse of Position of Trust of a Sexual Nature
Sexual Grooming
Other Miscellaneous Sexual Offences
Unnatural Sexual Offences
Exposure and Voyeurism
Robbery of Business Property
Robbery of Personal Property

So… umm, using our definition of ‘violent crime’* you can add to your ‘violent crime’ rate all the drink, drug, careless road deaths, several things that aren’t even illegal there (courtesy of ‘free speech’), all incidence of child abuse (neglect, sexual, physical), prostitution, posession of things (guns & knives) with no criminal intent! (which again isn’t illegal there), etc, etc, etc. And then we can compare numbers.

*no I don’t agree with the broad definition of violent crime here… it’s possible to be labelled a violent or sexual offender without doing anything violent or sexual (i.e. get drunk at the bar, urinate up a tree on the way home… congratulations, if witnessed, you run a strong risk of being labelled a sexual offender – ‘Exposure’).

4. I’m not taking anything and blowing it out of proportion. Nor am I calling for a ban on guns. I have, repeatedly, said the only steps I would advocate would be measures to keep guns out of the hands of the ‘wrong people’. Sure, I’ve played devil’s advocate a few times, and even leapt into the realms of sci-fi… but nothing I’ve proposed prevents sane, non-criminal people from owning & using firearms safely and responsibly.

5. You do realise that was the hunting with dogs ban that the free vote has been promised on? And why? Because of the strength of public opinion on the matter. People keep lobbying their MPs to support revoking that ban, so it might well happen. For the same reason, the ban on handguns is unlikely to be repealed in my lifetime, if ever, simply because of the very limited public support for it. Government is supposed to represent the views of the country, when the majority are for or against something, the minority have either to ‘suffer without’ or ‘put up with’ the wishes of the majority.

6. Your rights are enumerated in your constitution – which is a law. Nobody said it would be easy to overturn and, indeed, I don’t see it being altered any time soon but, and here’s the important bit, it is POSSIBLE. Following due process ALL of your ‘rights’ could be removed and replaced with ‘You have the right to absolutely nothing’.

No, that’s not going to happen but, pointing up to the ‘representing the views of the majority’, IF 80+% of the population want, say, the 5th amended… congress, et al, are going to pay attention or get voted out of office (yes, I picked a random number) with a new batch coming in supporting the changes the majority want.

 
Flag Post

Poky, ya’re pretty much missing the whole point here on this exposure of the HUMAN MIND to VIOLENCE….period.

Being exposed to the reality of violence—esp. in the visual context—can’t be, nor should be, eliminated entirely. LEARNING about real life events—prohibition gangsters, current gangs, wars, etc.—will hopefully generate a fuller understand of the horrid results of such actions.

HOWEVER, when such violence is pandered AS ENTERTAINMENT….
I can’t help but WONDER if a whole ‘nother can-0-worms isn’t opened in the human mind.
Ever heard of desensitazation?

Ever heard of how the military goes about making ground troops better killing machines and how such “indoctrination” methods are being used on children….and these have NO “M” ratings. They are “just there” in our everyday culture.

AND, I think we are currently, in this discussion, focusing waaaaay too much on ALL of this effect being (only?) mostly on children. Adults are just as capable of being desensitized—in greatly varying degrees- as are children. Believe me on this, I’m pretty “old”. Life itself USUALLY causes a person to become somewhat “hardened” in many ways.

This form of moving away from being “too thin-skinned” is a required part of learning to not be so impugned by life’s tragedies….much like the hands develop calluses when exposed to harsh exposure to serious hand-labor. Have we not heard of a person who is “calloused”?

Over my lifetime, I and many other ppl I have/currently do know have changed their attitudes on capital punishment. When one is young…ALL life is “precious”. As one MATURES, they revise such “compassion” to be mostly for those that evil ppl are inflicting on innocents. I personally believe that if ppl such as the Carr brothers are proven to be guilty 100%, we should absolutely kill them. We should do it publicly, we should either behead them or hang them (I’m not talking the good kind…let ’em dangle & kick) or firing squad so that a solid message is sent to those who think they are “tuff-enuff” to be bad-asses. I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

Yeah, sure…such exposure to “justice” certainly is seeing violence.
BUT, as I mention above…this is serving a societal purpose.
It “brings home” to the mind exactly what “PUNISHMENT” for committing violent acts will be.
Maybe then, we will step up our efforts for PREVENTION of letting the “nuts” slip through the cracks that allow them to filter down upon society to inflict their henious antisocial acts.

I give a fuck if ppl say such punishment “doesn’t work”. If it works on just 1% or maybe 10%, we are just that much better off….esp. if it involves me or my family, friends, etc.
Duh…no one would be “forced” to observed such executions. I’m pretty sure most ppl feel the same.

Gratuitous violence for the mere sake of “ENTERTAINMENT” should be given some very careful thought…..FOR AND BY EVERYONE.

 
Flag Post
We don’t allow kids into porn shows…..
just saying….

And we don’t allow kids to buy GTA. Just because we have the rules doesn’t mean a 14 year-old won’t find a way to watch porn on the Internet or find a way to get a copy of CoD. Short of banning every violent game and movie (which will never happen as it already failed in the Supreme Court), the rating system is about as good as you’re going to get.

 
Flag Post

BUT, a society—via its represenative form of GOVERNING—has a right to set forth terms by which those w/in said society will conduct their affairs. If a society truly wishes to minimize violence w/in itself….perhaps it should hold view of it as being unworthy of meirt rather than venture to profit from its pandering. What will be next….Roman Gladiators?

I still have a serious problem with that. I don’t care what the majority of my neighbours, or the majority of my countries populace, thinks is an appropriate limit to fiction. I refuse to endorse my censorship by a mob of appointed magistrates of good taste. Violence will always be pandered, and it will always profit, we thirst for violence. It’s as old as Cain and Abel and will forever remain a part of natural man. The day I grow so afraid of a stranger on the street that I endorse telling others what they are allowed to think or say will be a sad day indeed.

I for one would be fine with voluntary gladiators.

Just how hard is it for us to see that CHILDREN ARE GREATLY INFLUENCED by the things they NEWLY encounter as they grow?
We typically call that: LEARNING.

Then parents should endeavor to police their children, not bureaucrats the populace.

We don’t allow kids into porn shows….. just saying…..

Not sure if you mean as viewer or participant. But assuming viewer… why not? I don’t know anyone who’s first exposure to pornography was legally sanctioned at the age appropriate time. Hell I spent most of my teenage years with the ol internet and the subsequent generations will be spending their entire lives. What age we sanction pornography viewing has become laughably irrelevant and good or bad we’re going to see the consequences of generations raised with such rescources freely available. I don’t see either sex or violence as a serious problem for any critical thinking, well grounded, individual. As for the rest, I refuse to be be gracious about being under the same restraints we put the stupid and crazy in, we cannot let what is responsible for the bottom class dictate the limits of their betters.

HOWEVER, when such violence is pandered AS ENTERTAINMENT….
I can’t help but WONDER is a whole ‘nother can-0-worms isn’t opened in the human mind.
Ever heard of desensitazation? Ever heard of how the military goes about making ground troops better killing machines and how such “indoctrination” methods are being used on children….and these have NO “M” ratings. They are “just there” in our everyday culture.

In keeping with Gladiators… “Are you entertained?” I find violence entertaining. The majority of entertainment includes some form of violence. I don’t see anything inherently problematic in such a notion. Few things are “just there” in our everyday culture. The problem is the weak will of the people to dictate personal cultural controls. No one is obligated to watch tv. Pull the plug, control your media intake. Your killology source there is just as guilty as every other. It’s selling violence just as heartily as any other media, see all those things for sale? “The dramatic rise of violence in our culture”? Nope. Pure fiction. Violence is on the decline. It’s just hard to sell fear mongering under that approach.

(para) “Letting your child of three or four watch a splatter movie is the equivalent to murdering their friends.” What? “This happens hundreds of times a day on tv” Who lets four years olds watch splatter movies? Who thinks these people are responsible parents beset by a predatory institution as opposed to just grossly incapable? Who thinks that anyone raised by such folk might have problems exacerbated not merely by the content they watch but their absurdist home life?

Gratuitous violence for the mere sake of “ENTERTAINMENT” should be give some very careful thought…..FOR AND BY EVERYONE.

I’d suggest that entertainment, or rather the arts, or the free expression of man’s spirit is the only thing that justifies anything.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

So Don, we continue to compare a narrow margin of crime. I feel the reason for this is to defray one of the main arguments democrats use for gun control. To eliminate crime. Violent crime is a main focus so we can’t ignore it and cannot be eliminated from the overall discussion. With that said, let me offer this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyoppK_aDM

In this video, the vice-president admits gun control will not stop violent crime or future mass shootings. So what is the real reason for gun control? Could it be domination of America by a tyranny? How many countries have instituted gun control as a prelude to tyranny? Germany’s Hitler comes to mind.

Now we have to listen to a Pierce Morgan and his BS statistics and push for America to ban firearms. Yet as with all ant-gun people, the figures always seem to be skewed in their favor. When this is brought up, we get the proverbial narrowing of the subject matter. Let’s not talk about all of the crime, only that which pertains to what anti-gunners want to talk about. Well, here is a break down of your data and a comparison to a few other countries that are conveniently left out of the conversation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZfJubbWik

Let’s add all of the crime statistics which will actually put the UK as the most violent country in the European Union.

 
Flag Post

People against gun control are just spoiled brats who share facebook “political opinions” and disagree with everything the government does.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
We don’t allow kids into porn shows…..
just saying….

And we don’t allow kids to buy GTA. Just because we have the rules doesn’t mean a 14 year-old won’t find a way to watch porn on the Internet or find a way to get a copy of CoD. Short of banning every violent game and movie (which will never happen as it already failed in the Supreme Court), the rating system is about as good as you’re going to get.

AND, I have no disagreement w/ your position there.
I just want to claify that the “rating system” does establish “boundaries” that should be seen (mostly?) as guidelines that reflect the overall OPPINION of social mores on that issue.

I think most parents are quite happy knowing that certain boundaries are legally established in order to add further aid in seeing to it that their wishes for thier child’s welfare is in line what areas of experience are “open” to them.

“Let’s (13-17 year olds) go over to Jimmy’s house….his parents let him drink booze,,,even if they aren’t home.” Then, it might not be so much of a step to then see what meds his parents have around the house. Next thing a parent knows, they’re sitting in an ER hoping their kid hasn’t ODed on pills & booze.

If a society doesn’t establish some form of “regulatory guidelines” that “backup” what parents’ wishes are….who do ya think the kids are gonna “listen” to?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

You do realize you’re spending valuable time that you could be using to lambast jhco, right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

You do realize you’re spending valuable time that you could be using to lambaste jhco, right?

Sure, but since I’m an “equal-opportunity” lambastard….I just gotta spread the wealth (of my extensive?) “knowledge”. Lord knows most of it goes right over HIS head. Or, in one ear & out ta other. Passes GO, but fails to collect the $200.

However, I think I might stay the course on this “violence” thingy.
I’m a little confused by Ung’s “position”.
I thought he was largely AGAINST lacks gun restrictions.
Yet, he appears to be making a case for “the-real-world-does-NOT-imitate-art/entertainment” when it comes to violence….esp. that involving guns.
But, I’ll have to address all of his points….later.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by donseptico:

So Don, we continue to compare a narrow margin of crime. I feel the reason for this is to defray one of the main arguments democrats use for gun control. To eliminate crime. Violent crime is a main focus so we can’t ignore it and cannot be eliminated from the overall discussion.

Only because the US has such a narrow definition of ‘violent crime’.

By our own standards we’re ‘violent’ (we have a lot of ‘violent crimes’ – MOST of which are things like causing an injury whilst driving without tax, insurance, mot… walking around outside with a knife in your pocket… shouting racial abuse at people — all these, and much more, are considered violent crimes here – hell, I gave you most of the list above) rather than murder, grievous bodily harm, etc.

When you, and the chap in the earlier video, claim we’re much more violent than you overall and only compare against your limited definition of violent crime you’re the ones not making an accurate comparison… and guess what, the ‘fact check’ in the your most recent video does exactly the same thing!

So let’s see… you have 4? 5? hundred ‘violent crimes’ per 100,000 people by your own measure – add the (insert very large number) of things we record as ‘violent crimes’ and that number will sky-rocket.

e.g. How many people are injured or die on your roads per 100,000 as a result of drink/drug driving? Of not concentrating on the road (i.e. using a cell phone)? — all these are included in our ‘violent crimes’. (10.9 Million potential ‘not included crimes’ in 2009)

No, I don’t know the answers to that question (or the how many other ‘violent crimes’ by our definition) you experience for last year… I couldn’t find the answer in a quick search… but the car accident / injury / death one alone could add something like 3000 per 100k ‘violent crimes’ if they were recorded the same way as our figures.

So boo-hoo… we’re the most violent country within the EU (no, I’m not even going to bother checking)… big deal… MOST of our ‘violent crime’ isn’t violent, MOST of our ‘violent crime’ isn’t even considered illegal in the rest of Europe or the US, MOST of our ‘violent crime’ doesn’t result in any tangible injury to a person or persons. It would seem that if we measured ‘violent crime’ in the US by our definition, you’d be completely off the scale!

I find it interesting when you lose the rational debate you resort to tired rhetoric… you tried comparing crime stats and failed miserably and so are back to tyranny, hitler, etc. And you wonder why people just won’t take you seriously.


Obviously, as it wasn’t broadcast here, have no idea what Piers Morgan did or didn’t say… or how accurate any of it was. Given his pedigree with the Daily Mail (I’ve mentioned how credible a source they’re considered before) I’d take anything he says with more than a pinch of salt.


 
Flag Post

Don, I have not lost the rational debate on this subject. I have given you rational arguments and given you sources and references. However you have dismissed all in an irrational manner and resorted to making insults. You are obviously purposely giving your country a free pass on violent crime, which is fine. Don’t demand America becomes more like the UK if you can’t honestly accept the results of gun control in your own country.