Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he killed as many people with a knife as he did with a gun, which was a pistol. He injured several and possible killed one with his car.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)they do not care if a knife or car was used as a weapon and killed people. He had an evil gun and the only thing they can do is post an ad for a rifle.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Half of the people he killed, he killed with a knife, and many of those he injured, he injured with his car.
Guns were only a part of the Elliot Rodger incident, not the whole of it, like Sandyhook. Without a gun he still would have killed.
So I don't think he's a particularly good example of the problems with too easily available guns, because his rampage sends a mixed message as to guns.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and at least they have a chance to fight back....
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We already know that he killed as many people with a knife as with a gun, so it's just not an effective message in this instance.
In many cases, yes. In this one, I just don't think you get a clear anti-firearm message.
As I said, I'm not a pro-gun type, really. I just don't think this particular incident is useful in pushing gun control.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it happened in a state with the strictest gun control laws in the US.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that what you said will be used by my side (including me) as an example of "they don't argue using reason and facts, but exploit rare tragedies for emotional appeal." Really, that's what the gun control argument amounts to, kind of like anti pit bull arguments.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't consider gun violence a 'rare tragedy', given the incredible frequency with which it occurs in the country. What I was trying to point out was that although this violent person did use a gun, he also used multiple weapons for his particular violence, such that, even though he is indeed yet another of the all too common creators of gun violence, his use of a knife and a car as weapons as well gives the pro-gun side excuses to write off his use of a gun. Basically, I'm saying 'use the common and purely gun-related violence' to push the message of the need for fewer guns, because it prevents the pro-gun side from pulling in distractions and tangentials.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)most murders are criminals killing each other in a few cities. Most gun deaths are suicides, which would otherwise be rope deaths.
Here is the problem, say he couldn't get a gun (if getting a bag of coke isn't that hard, getting a gun isn't that hard regardless of the law.) maybe those three lives would be saved, maybe not. Maybe he would have used other means, or simply torched the sonority house and kill even more people. Even if their lives would be spared, someone else would replace them because they didn't have access to a gun. These two come to mind..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/oklahoma-girl-shoots-home-intruder_n_1992381.html
http://www.abc57.com/seen-on/weekend/Oklahoma-12-year-old-girl-defends-home-175087401.html
There are thousands more, but rarely if ever make the national news.
Defensive gun uses, according to the FBI and CDC, outnumber criminal use by several times.
I don't support any policy based on emotion and misinformation regardless of who is pushing it.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)supporting your assertions that "most murders are criminals killing each other in a few cities" and "most gun deaths are suicides" ?
Would be interested in seeing those numbers and their source.
Thanks.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Unfortunately, not all printed matter is on line and easily found.
http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/murder.html
http://www.policymic.com/articles/64279/the-15-most-murderous-cities-in-the-united-states
the article does make one error, that the Bible Belt has traditionally had liberal gun laws. That has been fairly recent. Until fairly recent erosion of restrictions, the south has been stricter, (including out right bans) especially during the Jim Crow era. The Mountain West has always had (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico) more liberal gun laws.
Out of about 30K death by firearm, about 20K are suicide
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)banging on the door....if they had of let him in....there would have been more dead by gun shot...
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Mentally ill persons are more likely to be victims of violence than to be perpetrators.
'Murderous' does not automatically mean 'mentally ill.'
'Crazy psychotic' is not an actual mental health category.
phil89
(1,043 posts)people with mental illness! So far I haven't seen any evidence this guy was mentally ill or that it caused his actions. Maybe he was diagnosed with something but I haven't heard.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is an adage: rush a gun, run from a knife. He took out three people in his apartment with a knife. While he was stabbing the first, why didn't the other two gang up on him?
Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)
Paladin This message was self-deleted by its author.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)In a knife fight I'd rather have a gun.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I cannot recall ever being in one...
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)were the people who got shot and killed....ever shot and killed before?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes, I'm sure they just layed down and said "kill me". 
People were shot and killed, and stabbed and killed, by someone raised by people with staunch anti-gun beliefs.
Just quit while you're behind.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)"Shifman said the family is "staunchly against guns" and supports gun-control laws. "They are extremely, extremely upset that anybody was hurt under these circumstances," he said."
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/24/7-dead-in-drive-by-shooting-near-uc-santa-barbara/20892001/?icid=maing-grid7|htmlws-main-bb|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D480318
Seems to me Chris Dorner the rampage cop was anti-gun too.
And both happened in a state the brady campaign gives an A-.
Me, I'd say you need to worry about your own back yard before pointing your finger at anyone elses.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)That is blatantly ridiculous....
My backyard doesn't require a gun.....
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)“In the end, I hope that you will realize that the small arms I utilize should not be accessed with the ease that I obtained them. Who in [their] right mind needs a f***ing silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be reinstituted. Period!!!,” the manifesto also said.
Sandwiched between a litany of episodes of alleged abuse and a hodgepodge of ranting advice to movie directors, politicians, cyclists, football players and seemingly everybody else in modern American life, the plea of a disturbed gun-toting mass murderer for more gun control sounds even weirder.
http://www.ibtimes.com/christopher-dorner-unlikely-gun-control-advocate-1083118
Par for course because the Prohis would use an army of Chris Dorners to enforce their laws of control and subjugation.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)is "anti" gun. GMAFB....that IS the most ridiculous and piss poor excuse to hide gun fetishism as I have ever seen. The fact that anyone would even think this proves what it is....fetishism.
I am a feminist....therefore I hate women too right?
I ate vegetables for lunch....therefore I am a anti-vegetables!
I forgot to brush my teeth....therefore I a pro-dentist....
That makes about as much sense as those statements...
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Do you you even pause and look at what you are arguing, he is talking Dorner, and his manifesto is what it is, and while you are at it, go clean your shoes, it's unbecoming.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I was clearly sticking to the topic at hand.....not throwing in red herrings.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)run, dodge, obfuscate, and you talk of red herrings???
I guess that guilt is starting to get to all you over-reachers about now, we would have had more indepth background checks including mental health if DiFi Corp. had not pushed to ban cosmetic features and standard capacity magazines.
Scream forth to heavens all you want, you do nothing for change, and wallow in fear and bigotry. This one lies square on those that would not listen, and had to put agenda before lives and party.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)just sayin'
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)sincere apology
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Your cognitive dissonance aside, Dorner wrote what he wrote.
And he was not "a kid." He was a grown man and a member of the LAPD. He was a power-monger with delusions of grandeur. There is nothing inconsistent with an egomaniac amassing weapons while demanding others be rendered helpless. The last thing an egomaniac wants is for others to be on an equal footing. It's what draws the sociopaths to government power and badges.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Red herrings do not suit you....and it is quite clear that you cannot argue "gun politics" from a rational perspective. To me you have just outed yourself with this line of reason. Let's just say..."wolf in sheeps clothing".
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It doesn't fit their politicizing death and mayhem. The gun is all that matters to some and those who did not die by a gun are inconvenient to the agenda.
When it was pointed out that an armed citizen would have had the upper hand in such an encounter you rejected that reality by with a further rejection of reality wherein you posited that if guns were not available that the would-be victims could simply fight off their attacker. Guns will be available to those determined to cause harm, just as drugs are available to those intended on getting loaded.
When you were reminded of the fact that a person armed with a gun would have the upper hand you again rejected that reality with the red herring about asking how often I found myself in a knife fight. It doesn't matter how many times a person may be caught in a knife fight. If they are innocent they have an absolute right to self-defense.
To illustrate this I pointed out that seat belts are precautionary, that one need not expect to be in an accident in order to employ a seat belt. You rejected this reality and employed a red herring that seat belt laws were common sense. The fact that seat belts are common sense is not rebuttal but an endorsement of other forms of common sense such as being able to defend yourself if the need arises.
Hence, I responded by noting common sense understands that guns are superior when confronted by a knife. You rejected this reality and, in response to another poster, employed the red herring of wanting to know why the three stabbing victims didn't overpower Rodgers. It doesn't matter why the encounter went one way or another; it has no bearing on a person's inherent and absolute right to self-defense.
Another poster responded and noted that Chris Dorner was anti-gun. You rejected this reality so I posted an article with excerpts to his manifesto.
You rejected the reality of the manifesto and mislabeled Dorner "a kid." When it was pointed out to you that Dorner was not a kid and that was in fact his manifesto you began a campaign of projecting your evasive red herrings on to others.
Every response I have made has been based on arguments you have made. That your arguments have the durability of tissue paper in a rain storm is your problem, not mine. Generally, in debate formats, one party doesn't simply get to (mis)use some hoity-toity phrase to dismiss their opposite's argument, they must explain how their dismissal is relevant -- as I have done, above.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)in a "civilized" society. Those are not hunting weapons....those are weapons made for one thing and one thing only....TO KILL people.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)1 - was Rodger ever adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge, or diagnosed as seriously mentally ill by a licensed mental health professional?
2 - the 2nd Amendment does not mention hunting anywhere; the ruling in Heller v DC was regarding the ability, or lack thereof, to possess a firearm in one's home for self defense.
Looks like you may be running out of fish. Maybe another trip to the market?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)They probably shouldn't be allowed to drive, vote or work near vulnerable groups either, i.e. children and the infirm.
Feel free to propose policies that do not infringe on the rights of others and are effective and I will join you in support.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Does this sound like a pro-gun person immersed in gun culture to you?
From the manifesto this psycho left:
"Going to the shooting range while I waited for my laptop gave me the perfect opportunity to gain some initial training in shooting guns, which will be the main weapons I use as vengeance against my enemies when the Day of Retribution ultimately comes to pass. I walked into the range, rented a handgun from the ugly old redneck cashier, and started to practice shooting at paper targets. As I fired my first few rounds, I felt so sick to the stomach. I questioned my whole life, and I looked at the gun in front of me and asked myself “What am I doing here? How could things have led to this?” I couldn’t believe my life was actually turning out this way. There I was, practicing shooting with real guns because I had a plan to carry out a massacre. Why did things have to be this way, I silently questioned myself as I looked at the handgun I was holding in front of me. I paid my fee and left the range within minutes, feeling as if I was going to be sick."
Don't be shy now.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Do you only put your seat belt on just before you get into an accident? Do you live in fear of being in a car accident?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Quit blaming the tool.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I WILL blame the tool.....and so did Australia...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Port Author simply gave John Howard and excuse to do what he always wanted to do, or at least part of it. Yes, he did blackmail the states to adopting the National Firearms Agreement (Australia actually doesn't have federal gun laws. It has a patchwork of state laws, but not to polar opposites like here. Tasmania had the most liberal laws. NSW had the strictest, and still does.) Since the crime happened in Tasmania, Tasmania had a licensing and registration system. The semi auto rifles used were not legally owned, nor acquired. He did not have a license and one of the guns was stolen from a police evidence room. BTW, the claim that there has been no mass shootings in Australia since NFA is an example of stacking the deck. What they forgot to tell you was that there were none before (using the FBI's definition) and that there have been at least three mass murder by arson since then.
One more thing
http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its always wingers that try to deny that Australia saw a reduction in serial killing sprees....
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Australia and peer reviewed criminology journals. What you have are press releases from gun prohibition groups in Australia and the Howard government and being taken seriously by lazy assed MSM.
Mass murders are different than serial killing. Also, New Zealand had the same happen, did nothing, and had the same results as Australia. There is no evidence that one had anything to do with another.
One correction, there was a rash of sprees in the 1980s. The copy cat effect probably had more to do with it than gun laws, since only one happened in Tasmania. The rest were in other states with stricter gun laws such as NSW.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's why Australia has taken it all back right?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Do you seriously think any government would admit to being wrong?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you do realize voting is mandatory in Australia right?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)First, outside the rural areas, Australia never really had a "gun culture", and either party will defend its policies regardless of how good it was. That is true of any political party. Here, it was the right of center Liberal Party, then led by neo con John Howard. Greens and Labour are not really the gun rights parties, that is why the gun rights groups formed their own political party. Also, most people are not that well informed. After living in several countries and working with the Air Forces of our NATO allies (mostly UK, Canada, France) oh, and Oman, most people have the same problem Americans have: They take whatever the government or MSM tells them at face value. The political and economic elites, who control the governments and media, generally don't like subjects owning guns, with few exceptions (like Canada until the 1870s, when they realized that we were not going to invade them again and Switzerland)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)TIM PALMER: Homicide rates in Australia have fallen to historic lows according to figures released by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Those figures show that in every category, the incidence of murder is falling. In particular, the chance of being killed randomly by a stranger is lower than it has ever been.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3694783.htm
THAT is what that young man named Chris that died in the deli's father KNOWS!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and continued to fall at the same rate, along with just about every other country including ours. Why? Mostly because we started removing lead from gasoline. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Yet you ignore the Australian news article that says gun use in crime doubling. BTW, IIRC, the Hells Angels and Mongels are still at war, sometimes with home made machine guns.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I notice we don't allow you to drive racing cars on our streets.....why is THAT you wonder?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)especially when talking about federal law and even more so when talking about California.
You don't need a license to own a car, just drive it. Don't need to register it as long as it stays on private property.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)No you cannot. Why do THEY need common sense regulation?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Feel free to prove me wrong by saying people should be free to own whatever they like, and that your only concern is what they have in public.
I wont hold my breath.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sorry epic fail.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I can use a car, a gun, or just about anything else, to my hearts content on my own property, or generally on any private property on which I have authorization.
The only epic fail here, is your logic, friend.
The principle is simple here:
Ownership of a thing, and 'public usage' of a thing, are two different things.
You have been conflating the two, as people of your ideology on guns quite regularly do, and it got noticed, and called out for the dishonest disingenuous bit that it was.
Get used to it, because that isn't going to stop, unless people like yourself cease such dishonesty.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"dishonesty" that is rich!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)are car dealerships licensed by the federal government? No. Gun stores? Yes
are car makers licensed by the federal government? No. Gun makers? Yes.
Can poor inventory control send a car dealer to federal prison? No. Gun dealers? Yes
Can a felon legally buy car? Yes. Guns? No.
Is there an age restrictions on buying a car? No. Guns? 18 for long guns, and 21 for handguns under federal law.
Can I drive to the next state to legally buy a car? Yes. Gun? no, that's up to ten years in federal prison under the Gun Control Act for both parties.
Does any state have waiting periods to buy a car? No. Guns? some, including California and Florida.
I can make a much longer list, but you get the picture.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)can you be sent to war before you can buy a six pack? Do you need to take an eye exam before you can be licensed to drive YES....do you have to show proof of insurance YES....do you have to prove you can operate a motor vehicle properly by taking not one but 2 tests! Some states EVEN make you pay taxes on them every year...or have them inspected yearly....or have their emissions checked...Is your driving record being kept on file....etc etc etc....
WTF does any of that have to do with anything....YOU ARE being regulated. YOU cannot own a nuclear weapon...EVEN if it were in a handgun! THAT IS regulation....it is now a question of what is COMMON SENSE regulation!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Do you need to take an eye exam before you can be licensed to drive YES....do you have to show proof of insurance YES....do you have to prove you can operate a motor vehicle properly by taking not one but 2 tests!"
Do you need to be licensed to drive on non-public property? No.
Do you have to show proof of insurance to drive on non-public property? No.
Do you have to prove you can operate a motor vehicle properly by taking not one but 2 tests to drive on non-public property? No.
"Some states EVEN make you pay taxes on them every year"
Only if they're used on public property, and certainly NOT as a condition of ownership.
"or have them inspected yearly"
Only if they're used on public property, and certainly NOT as a condition of ownership.
"or have their emissions checked"
Only if they're used on public property, and certainly NOT as a condition of ownership.
"Is your driving record being kept on file"
Only matters for public usage, and is completely irrelevant to owning a vehicle.
Owning a thing, is not the same thing as 'public usage' of a thing.
Please. Make a list of things adult people can not own.
I doubt you even have any idea. And even if you do, you know that list is mighty short.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)What you think isn't my problem, and you aren't going to make it my problem.
Guns aren't going to be made illegal to own in America.
Ever.
Your problem, not mine.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)YOUR fetish is ALREADY regulated...and therefore can be FURTHER regulated....based on what is deemed common sense.
Do you think if someone invented a gun that could disintegrate humans....everyone should be allowed to own those without regulation too? Wouldn't that be common sense?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Don't presume to be lecturing anyone on common sense.
Particularly when you assign, without any evidence what so ever, a fetish, to people you have absolutely no idea clue or relevant facts about, with which to support such a vile and baseless claim.
I own a single handgun, and a pair of rimfire rifles. I've fired a gun now, exactly twice in the last 4 months.
To scare away some brazen coyotes.
I don't own any so called "assault weapons", nor do I have any desire to.
I don't have a concealed carry license, nor any desire or intention to get one.
So you can take your fetish BS and stick it back in the same dark place you extracted it from.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
beevul
(12,194 posts)No law mandates background checks for retail purchase OR private sales.
There are no horsepower limits.
Reclining seats, extended headrests, extended capacity fuel tanks, high intensity lighting, open exhaust, and on and on and on, are all quite legal to own.
People making the statement you replied to, haven't a clue about the reality of that which they speak.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Porsche Carrera GT: 5 is a civilian racing car
Police rule out 2nd vehicle in Walker crash
"This was not a car for novices," Alterman said. "Actually, the Carrera GT program began as a racing program."
Todd Trimble, an exotic car mechanic in Las Vegas, said the Carrera GT is a "very hard car to drive."
"It's (a) pure racer's car. You really need to know what you're doing when you drive them. And a lot of people are learning the hard way."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/us/paul-walker-crash-car/
http://www.americanracecar.com/ARC/newlook/Auto_photo_slideshow_frame.cfm?category=193
http://www.americanracecar.com/ARC/newlook/content_page.cfm?if_page_id=296
Straw Man
(6,623 posts)--http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-santa-barbara-shooting-20140524,0,4028820.story?page=1
So a "shooting spree" begins with three stabbings? I would say it began when the first shots were fired.
I lament the sorry state of journalism. Is this imprecision careless or deliberate? Do only gun deaths count now?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)but that does not fit the current anti-gun narrative. You are right on the poor writing in the papers.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)try harder next time please...
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I've seen in months.
ileus
(15,396 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I walked in to the wrong room.
Wtf, is a man card? And why does it require a big ass weapon?
My hubby doesn't have a 'Bushmaster'. Does that mean he has no man card?
If i get that gun, do I get a man card? I need to know these things.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)clone that was made in Maine until Remington bought them, and saved them before Sandy Hook. Nothing special or cool about it.
Oh, if you are a NY resident, Coumo signed off on the corporate welfare package to pay for Remington for moving the production to New York.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I live in Alaska, and my governor would do the same thing as Cuomo if he could. Hell, he already sold us to big oil, basically paying them to drill oil.
We love guns out here, but we use them on caribou and moose. Kinda have to have one if you live out, or in a village. No big grocery stores in the bush, all subsistence. Thats why i live in the city. Saw some bears at the Ramada downtown once. Knocked the dumpster over and ate the food. Kinda cool.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It is an OK gun for home defense and as a range toy, that's the wrong gun for the Alaska bush for several reasons IMNSHO. One being that most use the .223 (5.56 NATO) round. While effective on small deer in Texas, a moose or Kodiak bear will stuff it down your throat. I doubt it could humanely kill a Caribou any more than it could a Wyoming mule deer. In fact, it may not be legal for game hunting (it isn't in Wyoming. The same gun in a larger caliber and five round magazine would be. But, I digress.) That and I wouldn't trust a semi auto in extreme cold (in the wilderness, the simpler the better). The Royal Danish Marines use bolt actions on their Sirius patrols as do the Canadian Rangers.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I was thinking that next season we'd get out and do some moose hunting. It will be my first time and i think i'll just stand back and watch. I'm sort of a weenie when it comes to death. Can't even kill a fish without crying. 
No semi auto in extereme cold. I'll make that a rule.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: it happened in a state {calif} with the strictest gun control laws in the US.
Right, & that's contributing reason why there were so few casualties, 3 deaths from his handguns, no more than a typical family murder/suicide; handguns are not that accurate at the distances he was shooting from (generally his car it seems), about 18% of shots hitting a mark. He injured 8 more with his guns. He 'hit the mark' in 11 cases, for a 27% death rate. Imagine if he'd had an ar15 or an uzi or dirty harry's 357magnum.
But he chose the common handgun to buy, 9mm, likely not to call undue attention to himself (357mag might be calif legal).
gejohnston .. you realize of course that what you said will be used by my side (including me) as an example of "they don't argue using reason and facts, but exploit rare tragedies for emotional appeal." Really, that's what the gun control argument amounts to, kind of like anti pit bull arguments.
Actually, we're more sick of people like you claiming the above junk science is true, rather than a little progun escape hatch to fob blame off themselves & the gunnutted crowd for us being sick of gunshootings. We use ample reason & facts & evidence, which is SEVERELY lacking from the likes of you, having read you for a few years now.
Such as your disinformation & twisting of facts below:
gejohnston ... instances like this is rare .. most murders are criminals killing each other in a few cities. Most gun deaths are suicides, which would otherwise be rope deaths.
You're forgiven for not realizing 'jumping from high places' as the more popular form of suicide where guns are not available, but 'most murders are criminals killing each other in a few cities' is misleading. And the link you posted to back you up, doesn't. It mentions 4 major studies on murder victims, one of Philadelphia PA, one of Los Angeles, one of family murders, & one of large urban counties. Philly & LA are high population density urban cities where gangs moreso exist, while the family study does not properly mention whether criminal or not, so the only one with a smidgeon of credibility is the 'large urban county' study, which claims:
.. most victims know their killers. They hope we will infer that this means they had a normal relationship.. with sudden outburst of anger, the presence of the gun was responsible for the death
2 Murderers' Crime Records. Approximately, 44% of the victims had criminal records. Of these, fully 83% were killed by someone who also had a criminal record. {so about 38% were crim on crim, not half}.
3 Strangers. 20% of victims are killed by strangers
4 Crime and Gang Relationships. This category includes 17% of victims and 36% of killers. Here, a gang member kills a member of his own gang or someone he knows in another gang.
http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/murder.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The only AR I carried in extreme cold was an M-16A2, and I didn't pick it out. If January and February, the winds that hit Korea from Manchuria are really cold. If you are going to accuse me of being a hypocrite, at least look up the word. Oh, if you going to comment on guns, please actually learn something.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: Defensive gun uses, according to the FBI and CDC, outnumber criminal use by several times.
Here Johnston misleads, intentionally, that the fbi is claiming this factoid above, when they are not (I doubt either the CDC); ... the fbi's crime statistics are evidentally what is being used by Johnston & progun factions to claim this, as estimates of defensive gun usage (DGU) to thwart crime (which may or may not have ever occurred anyway).
Here is what Johnston cited to back up his above claim, parens only are by nat research council: Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
Actually the 'fishy' 108,000 dgu is the Bureau of Justice NCVS approximation of yearly def gun use, which Johnston is hypocritically using to mislead that the FBI is supporting efficacy of guns in defensive postures. The bur of justice & the FBI are interrelated.
The mentioned 300,000 is bona fide reported guncrime to the fbi, while the dgu totals are from all over, including verbal dgus such as 'go away or I'll get my gun', or imaginary dgus such as saving oneself from a homeless man rummaging the trash can at night. Indeed, gun guru gary kleck, in his dgu study from the 90's, wrote that 54% of his reported dgus started as verbal, so guesstimate about 33% of all dgus are verbal.
If you were to contrast total violent crime with reported defensive gun uses, you would be better to contrast the same national crime victimization survey (NCVS) which includes 'UNREPORTED crime', since too much of the reported dgus are subjective.
Here's another of the many misinformations proffered here, by Johnston:
Johnston: Port Author (sic, Arthur) simply gave John Howard an excuse to do what he always wanted to do, or at least part of it. Yes, he did blackmail the states to adopting the National Firearms Agreement (Australia actually doesn't have federal gun laws. It has a patchwork of state laws, but not to polar opposites like here.
Christian Science Monitor: In the wake of the shooting, polls indicated that up to 85 percent of Australians supported the measures taken by the government. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws
So Howard blackmailed the states, eh Johnston?
Johnston: I don't support any policy based on emotion and misinformation regardless of who is pushing it.
With the glaring exclusionary clause for yourself, eh Johnston?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Several criminology studies show that the NCVS under count DGUS. BTW, NCVS is done by Census, not Justice. Pulling out shill studies by Hemenway and Kellerman don't count.
As for the article, it says there hasn't been any mass shootings since Port Author. Not really true, and the Port Author did not obtain his guns legally. There were a few mass shootings in the 1980s, but not before 1987. After NFA, there was one mass shooting and at least three mass murder by arson with bigger death tolls than most mass shootings.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: BTW, NCVS is done by Census, not Justice.
bjs: The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
Bur of Justice compiles what the census provides. What I previously wrote: the 'fishy' 108,000 dgu is the Bureau of Justice NCVS approximation of yearly def gun use..
Johnston: Pulling out shill studies by Hemenway and Kellerman don't count
You would obviously much prefer shill studies put out by far rightwing institutes & the gun industry.
Johnston: nonsense Several criminology studies show that the NCVS under count DGUS.
'Several criminology studies' claim NCVS undercounts dgus! Wow! which rightwing progun criminology studies ARE they, Johnston? Making that claim without providing any links is just further proof of your resort to deception & misinformation.
Johnston: The Howard government told the states that they would lose funding for their single payer systems if they did not adopt NFA, that is blackmail.
Not necessarily, for if solid ~80% of Australians supported the aussie guncontrol reforms, all those provinces & territories would likely have backed it anyway. Howard was a conservative & hard to believe many of his own opposing him. You're just reiterating nra & gun lobby propaganda.
Johnston: As for the article, it says there hasn't been any mass shootings since Port Author. Not really true, and the Port Author did not obtain his guns legally.. After NFA {aussie nat firearms act} , there was one mass shooting and at least three mass murder by arson with bigger death tolls than most mass shootings.
Above readers, observe Johnston's duplicity again, comparing port ARTHURS mass shooting killing 35 & wounding 21, with (below stats) a Chinese student killing 2 & wounding 5. I would argue the latter was tempered greatly by the aussie firearm controls after port arthur.
And what, Johnston, have fires to do with aussie guncontrol? red herrings from you.
Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21..
Childers Fire - June 2000, drifter started a fire at the Childers Palace hostel killed 15.
Monash Uni shooting - Oct 2002, Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire.
Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died..
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)besides, he did not obtain his guns legally. He did not have the required license nor were they registered to him. One of the rifles was stolen from a police evidence room. Using the FBI's definition of mass murder, each of the seven different locations was a separate event.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: Port Author was over a two day period
For the 4th or 5th time, it's port Arthur. You can't even get the name right.
besides, he did not obtain his guns legally. He did not have the required license nor were they registered to him. One of the rifles was stolen from a police evidence room. Using the FBI's definition of mass murder, each of the seven different locations was a separate event
This makes me VOMIT. This is the most pathetic, lamest explanation, tapdance, double double talk talk, that I've ever seen to describe the port Arthur massacre in Australia. I suspect it's nra gun lobby propaganda, of which you are eminently well versed in.
You need to join your true colors Johnston, the republican party, for you are no real democrat, in my opinion.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I altered the spelling to make sure you were actually reading it. That's the best you can do? Correct my spell checker? BTW, port is part of a proper noun, it is Port Arthur. the NRA is also a proper noun, and initials.
You need to join your true colors Johnston, the republican party, for you are no real democrat, in my opinion.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)johnston:I altered the spelling to make sure you were actually reading it. That's the best you can do? Correct my spell checker? BTW, port is part of a proper noun, it is Port Arthur. the NRA is also a proper noun, and initials.
Huh? a transparent smoke screen followed up by trivia. You intentionally misspelled 'port arthur' as port author, in order to ensure only that I was reading you? that's even nuttier than what I previously described as your nuttiness.
Johnston: No, I actually looked it up. So, you are saying that detached analysis, critical thinking and researching subjects in depth are Republican traits and not Democratic traits?
Go ---- away; .. what I'm saying is that it was casuistic specious & pathetic. Followed by your 'traits' tailing which is a clear logic fallacy of creating a false premise & making your argument from your own false premise, just utterly hypocritical from someone who allegedly eschews logic fallacies;
.. your description was a lame attempt to portray aussie PM john howard's gun control legislation as unjustified, an overreaction to port Arthur, twisting facts that aussie legislation hasn't made any significant improvement to Australia's crime &/or murder problems esp wrt firearms, which is in line with your previous writings in this thread.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: No, the assumption was pretty spot on to me.
then you're nuts; you created a false premise, and now you say it was spot on?
Here is what you contended in your false premise: .. Johnston: "So, you are saying that detached analysis, critical thinking and researching subjects in depth are Republican traits and not Democratic traits?"
I never said that, implied it, nor think it. It is YOUR leading false premise trying to justify your weird logic, clearly saying that is what I intended, then couching it in a question format.
It is BS, as if it held any rational truth, rather than the usual smear tactics we generally get from rightwing con-men like the swift boat club.
Johnston: Right now, their biggest problem are biker gangs, like the Mongols and Hells Angels war, using smuggled pistols and homemade machine guns.
More nuttiness, if you think that's their biggest problem; how many total murders/killings in a year by the biker wars? a dozen?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)They think it is a serious problem.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)That is pretty sad.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)"every kiss begins with Kay" or any other marketing slogan.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BTW, he used a pistol. And a knife. And a car.
