German Police Used Only 85 Bullets Against People in 2011

[DanTex]

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A. As Boing Boing translates, most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."

Technically, about 9,000 more shots were fired at sick and dangerous animals. (Germany, why do you kill your animals?) But since we couldn't watch the end of Old Yeller, we'll look the other way on those humanitarian shootings.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., where the population is little less than four times the size of Germany's, well, we can get to 85 in just one sitting, thank you very much. 84 shots fired at one murder suspect in Harlem, another 90 shot at one fleeing unarmed man in Los Angeles. And that was just April. So we bring you Germany's shot total in case you forgot about America shoots itself in the foot with its manic love of guns.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/

The homicide rate in the US is about 5X higher than in Germany. Yes, it is possible to have a society largely free of gun violence.

[ileus]

1. I didn't fire any...

and I don't need an escort to go turkey hunting.

[sarisataka]

2. NY pd can do that twice in a weekend

So instead of only military and police being armed, are you suggesting we disarm the police for shooting too much?

You do realize you are otherwise comparing apples and oranges. Unless we are now going to count people shot by police as crime victims...

[DanTex]

10. Not suggesting we disarm the police.

Just suggesting that there's a much better way to deal with guns that what we do in the US. The main reason German police don't shoot very often is because they don't need to, because the criminals they face are much less likely to be armed. There's just less lethal violence all around. And this is in no small part due to Germany much tighter gun laws.

[sarisataka]

43. There may be a better way but

the number of shots fired by police has little to do with the homicide rate. I suspect property and drug crimes involve the police shooting more often than crimes against persons.

Guns laws may have an effect on how often police shoot but I think a higher standard of police training plays a very important factor. Police in gun free NYC routinely rack up high numbers of shots fired in individual incidents. If the police were engaging a street gang, then it might be applicable but it seems to always be against a single person who, as often as not, was unarmed. To knowledge that the person potentially is carrying a gun may be a factor but would also be true in Germany.

As others have pointed out, the American experience currently is more guns and less violence. It does not follow that tighter laws would lead to less violence; nor is there any proof more gun ownership would further reduce crime. It may be both sides are wrong and there is nearly no relationship between guns and violence despite what logic tells us should be true.

My opinion is it would be more beneficial to look into how Germany prevents and counters violence to reduce the US homicide and violent crime rates.

[spin]

3. Germany has a long history of gun control ...

Gun politics in Germany

History of firearms restrictions in Germany

Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles

In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

***snip***

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

***snip***

Current laws

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956. The legal status returned essentially to that of the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The regulation of the matter was thoroughly revised in 1972, when the new restrictive Federal Weapons Act (Bundeswaffengesetz) became effective, partly as a reaction to the terror of the Red Army Faction.[8] It was developed in the Federal Weapons Act of 2002 and by amendments in 2008 and 2009. These laws were the result of a chain of school shootings in Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden. They led to a public debate, in which blame was attributed to various elements of youth culture and society, including violent computer games, television programs, rock music and private gun ownership.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Obviously if we had a similar history of strong gun control we would have far fewer than 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands Amazingly while tragic, only 11,015 homicides resulted from firearms in 2010. (source: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html).

In 2005 there were approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities. (source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year#ixzz1uZFbduca)

1993 was the peak year for homicides committed by firearms and the total that year was 17,075.



Nonfatal injuries caused by firearms used in crime have also fallen significantly. In 1994 there were 1.3 million victims but in 2005 the number had fallen to 477,040.



(source: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/)

Interestingly 1993 was one of the early years in which "shall issue" concealed carry laws were sweeping across our nation state by state.



In the last decade the sale of firearms has skyrocketed yet the violent crime rate has dropped to levels last seen in the late 60s.


(source: http://nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=011812.cfm&path=2012)

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).[1]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Now obviously because of the many factors that can influence the violent crime rate, it is impossible to conclude that more firearms in the hands of civilians and laws that allow licensed citizens to carry firearms in public have resulted in the decrease in the violent crime rate. However if you consider only just these two factors, it is obvious that more firearms and more people legally carrying firearms does not equal more crime.

A fair question might be, "Would violent crime increase if draconian gun laws were passed that forbid legal concealed carry and greatly limited the ownership of some firearms or certain types of firearms such as handguns or semi-auto firearms?"

I could also point out that while it is fun to compare crime rates from nation to nation, it is foolish because of the cultural and demographic differences between nations.

Germany is the size of Montana with a population of 82,217,800 people which would be the same as the population of our three largest states (California,Texas and New York) combined. Germany also has far different drug laws than does the United States which has a failed war on drugs that results in a high rate of violence involving drug gangs fighting for turf.

Drug policy

***snip***

Germany

Compared with other EU countries the drug policy of Germany is considered to be rather progressive but still stricter than for example the Netherlands. In 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that drug addiction was not a crime, as was the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. In 2000 the German narcotic law ("BtmG&quot was changed to allow for supervised drug-injection rooms. In 2002, a pilot study was started in seven German cities to evaluate the effects of heroin-assisted treatment on addicts, compared to methadone-assisted treatment. The positive results of the study led to the inclusion of heroin-assisted treatment into the services of the mandatory health insurance in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy#Germany

While I believe that allowing civilians to own firearms as is legal in most states in our nation can definitely result in tragedy, overall honest and responsible citizens rarely misuse their weapons.

I also believe that admitting that our war on drugs is a total failure and legalizing some drugs such a marijuana might also result in far less violent crime, I realize that currently it is very difficult to convince those we elect to agree. Even our President who admits he used drugs in his youth seems to favor continuing our efforts to combat drug use.

Still I feel that people like me who favor changing our policies on drugs have a far better chance of actually succeeding than those who wish to implement truly draconian gun laws in the U.S. that would be similar to those in many European nations.

I am realistic enough to also understand that many legalizing drugs would not solve all problems and people would get high and do foolish things that would injure or kill others. The United Sates with what would be far more reasonable drug laws would not be a utopia.

Are you willing to admit that if your idea of implementing firearm law similar to that in Germany were successful, despite the overwhelming odds of passing such legislation at this time, it might not be as successful at reducing violent crime as you wish?

Of course the major hurdles to your idea is that:

1) Many Americans would simply refuse obey the law and would vote during the following elections to throw every politician that supported draconian gun laws out of office. (Remember that there are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation that have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby and who strongly support the Second Amendment and believe that it allows honest citizens to own firearms with certain reasonable restrictions.)

2) Criminals who by nature do not obey laws would not turn in their firearms and would hope that your draconian gun laws would disarm many citizens as that would allow then to use their illegal weapons with far less fear of confronting an armed victim.

3) An attempt to confiscate firearms in order to achieve the level of firearm ownership in Germany would result in confrontations between the authorities and armed citizens would would refuse to give up their weapons and would be willing to fight. While this might involve only a small percentage of gun owners, it could lead to far more violence and fatalities than we have today. It might also lead to an armed rebellion in some areas of our nation that even if it failed would result in considerable disruption and needless death and injury of both police and those who once were honest and productive members of our society.

4) In the history of our nation firearms have been used to resist oppression. For example:

Deacons for Defense and Justice

On July 10, 1964, a group of African American men in Jonesboro, Louisiana led by Earnest “Chilly Willy” Thomas and Frederick Douglas Kirkpatrick founded the group known as The Deacons for Defense and Justice to protect members of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) against Ku Klux Klan violence. Most of the “Deacons” were veterans of World War II and the Korean War. The Jonesboro chapter organized its first affiliate chapter in nearby Bogalusa, Louisiana led by Charles Sims, A.Z. Young and Robert Hicks. Eventually they organized a third chapter in Louisiana. The Deacons tense confrontation with the Klan in Bogalusa was crucial in forcing the federal government to intervene on behalf of the local African American community. The national attention they garnered also persuaded state and national officials to initiate efforts to neutralize the Klan in that area of the Deep South.

The Deacons emerged as one of the first visible self-defense forces in the South and as such represented a new face of the civil rights movement. Traditional civil rights organizations remained silent on them or repudiated their activities. They were effective however in providing protection for local African Americans who sought to register to vote and for white and black civil rights workers in the area. The Deacons, for example, provided security for the 1966 March Against Fear from Memphis to Jackson, Mississippi. Moreover their presence in Southeastern Louisiana meant that the Klan would no longer be able to intimidate and terrorize local African Americans without challenge.

The strategy and methods that the Deacons employed attracted the attention and concern of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which authorized an investigation into the group’s activities. The investigation stalled, however, when more influential black power organizations such as US and the Black Panther Party emerged after the 1965 Watts Riot. With public attention, and the attention of the FBI focused elsewhere, the Deacons lost most of their notoriety and slowly declined in influence. By 1968 they were all but extinct. In 2003 the activities of the Deacons was the subject of a 2003, “Deacons for Defense.”
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/deacons-defense-and-justice

It is my opinion that people who are on both sides of this issue would be wise to work together to improve existing firearms law. Unfortunately today our politicians don't solve problems. Both major political parties fight like school yard children in a playground or like two opposing football teams in the Super Bowl. It seems that the majority of the people we elect are mainly interested in gaining reelection and are not willing to compromise in order to improve life in our nation.

[DanTex]

12. You lost me at "draconian gun laws".

Re: the statistics. Crime has dropped over the last two decades in the US for reasons that have very little to do with guns. But, even after this decline, we still have 5X as much homicide as Germany (and the rest of the developed world), and there is little doubt that gun availability is major factor.

[PavePusher]

14. Translation: "You lost me at your presentation of the facts".

Noted.

[DanTex]

16. Actually, it was the choice of the word "draconian".

[Glaug-Eldare]

17. You haven't lived under the yoke of oppressive dragon rule, have you

[DanTex]

18. I've under tight gun control laws, though. Never felt the least bit "unfree".

[PavePusher]

21. Your perception is warped by your internal bias-filter.

I can't help you with that.

[DanTex]

24. Do you ever post substantive comments?

Just curious. I've only seen juvenile one-liners from you.

[PavePusher]

42. Please re-visit "internal bias-filter".

Good luck and have a nice day.

[spin]

23. Let's look at the current gun laws in Germany ...

Gun politics in Germany

***snip***

Current laws

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956. The legal status returned essentially to that of the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The regulation of the matter was thoroughly revised in 1972, when the new restrictive Federal Weapons Act (Bundeswaffengesetz) became effective, partly as a reaction to the terror of the Red Army Faction.[8] It was developed in the Federal Weapons Act of 2002 and by amendments in 2008 and 2009. These laws were the result of a chain of school shootings in Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden. They led to a public debate, in which blame was attributed to various elements of youth culture and society, including violent computer games, television programs, rock music and private gun ownership.[9]

The Weapons Act of 2002 increased the age requirements for licensed hunters and competition shooters. It also introduced the requirement of a psychological evaluation for persons under the age of 25 to fulfil the requirement of personal adequacy for large-bore firearms.

The first amendment became effective on April 1, 2008. The intention of that amendment was to ban certain kinds of weapons like airsoft-guns, tasers, so-called Anscheinswaffen (dummy-guns) and knives with blades longer than 12 cm from public places. They may still be carried in sealed wrappings and for professional or ceremonial purposes. Their use on private premises and in non-public places like gun clubs is not restricted.

The second amendment became effective on July 17, 2009. It introduced routine verifications of safe firearms storage by local firearms control offices at the homes of licensees. It also tightened the conditions for continuous necessity. A constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) was launched against the law, alleging a violation of the inviolability of the home, guaranteed by Art. 13 of the German constitution.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

I would assume that since you use Germany as an example of how well gun control works, it would only be logical that you would like to see similar laws passed in the United States. In my opinion the firearm laws in Germany are draconian. The article that I linked to explains in far more detail all the requirements and I believe that most firearm owners would agree with my assessment that Germany's firearm laws are indeed extremely oppressive.

[DanTex]

26. I think most people would describe Germany's gun policy as "successful".

And the US's gun policy as "unsuccessful".

Germany is not the only successful model, of course, and I'm not saying they are the ideal.

Honestly, I think the whole idea that people are "oppressed" by gun laws is silly. I've lived in places with tight gun laws, tighter even than Germany. Never met a single person who felt "oppressed" or "punished" by the laws. The way they felt was "safe".

[gejohnston]

27. do you have any evidence that

German gun laws have anything to do with their low murder rate?
If so, why do gun laws only work in very highly developed countries like Western Europe, but not highly developed countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Russia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

I think this is actually closer to the real reason or reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

Punished in the sense that I would be expected to make sacrifices for problems I do not contribute to, while those who do contribute to the problem (bong owners, drug prohibitionists, and people who make money off of the WOD) are not.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. excellent point.

[DanTex]

29. LOL. Are we really back to "but, but... Mexico and Russia"!

[gejohnston]

30. that is not an arguement

are we really back to "but, but, look at......UK, Germany"

[DanTex]

31. True. How about you do a search and find the last 20 times we've discussed this exact point?

Mexico and Russia. LOL!

[gejohnston]

32. why bother?

you didn't provide an argument then either.

[DanTex]

33. LOL

OK, I'll do some searching for you. I think I put things pretty clearly right here:

Of course, Russia is a favorite example of pro-gunners of a country with strict gun laws and high homicide. But, obviously, Russia is lawless and crime-ridden for reasons that have nothing to do with gun laws, the same as for the other favorite pro-gunner example, Mexico.

To reach a fair and meaningful comparison, it is necessary to compare among nations that are roughly similar in other ways. Now, no two nations are identical, but developed nations have much more in common with each other than the US does with Russia.

And I think you'd agree with me about this if the topic weren't guns. If I were to point out that the US spends more per capita on health care and achieves equal or worst healthcare delivery than other developed nations, almost all of which have some form of universal healthcare, you'd probably agree that this is a worthwhile piece of evidence to take into account in the healthcare debate. But if some right-winger were to come along and argue that Russia and Mexico also have government provided healthcare, and lag far behind the US in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, etc., I imagine you'd see the flaw in that argument right away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=11937

And here's another point that pro-gunners never seem to understand.

... Despite the fact that the US doesn't have a particularly high violent crime rate by international standards, we have an astronomical homicide rate. Why? Because a lot more violent crimes here are committed with guns, and gun crimes are much more likely to result in homicide than violent crimes committed without guns.
...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117234827#post64

[gejohnston]

34. Russia is not the only example

and very few of their murders are committed with guns.

But, obviously, Russia is lawless and crime-ridden for reasons that have nothing to do with gun laws, the same as for the other favorite pro-gunner example, Mexico.

Same can be true of parts of the US that are crime ridden. Some parts of Chicago and DC come to mind. Some parts of those cities are very safe. Then there is Vermont. Still no evidence that gun laws have more of an impact than wealth distribution.
You still have not connected the dots. The bit about health care is a red herring. No one is saying that their strict gun laws are the reason for their murder rates. Still, Brazil is still highly developed and have a higher murder rate than Mexico. Still, why does the level of development trump gun laws? By international standards, our murder rate is quite low.

... Despite the fact that the US doesn't have a particularly high violent crime rate by international standards, we have an astronomical homicide rate. Why? Because a lot more violent crimes here are committed with guns, and gun crimes are much more likely to result in homicide than violent crimes committed without guns.

Kind of flimsy, have something to base it on?

[ellisonz]

45. And Brazil...

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

..

[iverglas]

48. watch out

When I told that joke in this forum, somebody proposed to me.

Of course, I had already told the ones about Stan Chiquita and Phil Espotato ... and I was then, er, accused of making up the brazillion one ...

[ellisonz]

49. I think...

Stand-Your-Ground laws ought to cover that scenario. No shotgun marriages.

[TPaine7]

4. Is this the best anti-gun OP you could find?

Why would you quote this painfully silly opinion piece?

There is so much fail, I can only hit the low points:

German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A.

As if police shootings are a product of a nation's "gun crazy{ness}." The people's right to keep and bear arms is not at issue in police shootings.

...most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots...

Ok. It seems the author admires the German police forces' incompetence and thinks American police should emulate it. Warning shots are stupid in the extreme in any but the most remote areas. Anything to join the "cool kids" it seems.

...another 90 shot at one fleeing unarmed man in Los Angeles.

Yes, Americans enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. And without it, there's no way POLICE would shoot wildly at an UNARMED FLEEING man.

I know this clown supports gun control, but arent you embarrassed to quote so pitiful a hack?

[DanTex]

11. Not "anti-gun", simply rational.

I don't know if it's "the best", but I thought it was quite an interesting statistic. In Germany, where gun policy is driven by reason rather than ideological extremism, there is so little lethal violence that even the police rarely need to shoot their guns (at people). To me, this sounds much better than the epidemic of gun violence we've got going on here.

[TPaine7]

13. So apparently you agree with the author

that police "need" to wildly shoot at unarmed fleeing people because "America is gun crazy."

That is the level of what passes for logic in many anti-gun circles, but I was thinking you held yourself to a higher standard.

Oh well, I trust open-minded observers can see the real "ideological extremism."

[DanTex]

15. Umm...did I say that?

I absolutely agree with the author that the gun-craziness of American society contributes significantly to the level of violence by police. Without a doubt.

Also, no, I don't think police "need" to shoot wildly at unarmed fleeing people. In case anyone was wondering...

[TPaine7]

35. Not in so many words...

but you did approvingly quote a hack who desperately attempted to tie police shooting wildly at an unarmed, fleeing man to America's alleged gun craziness.

Then when I called this blatant illogic to your attention, you neglected to distance yourself from it, at least initially. That called your position into question. I'm glad to hear that you don't agree.

Police don't need to shoot wildly at unarmed, fleeing people. Police who shoot wildly at unarmed fleeing people cannot logically hide behind American gun rights. Only an extremely biased and illogical person—a rabid ideologue like the hack you quoted—would insult our intelligence by trying to make that claim.

I'm frankly somewhat embarrased to be refuting this nonsense; I'm surprised you would quote it.

You claimed to have stopped reading when you came across "draconian gun control" or similar language. Perhaps I should have ignored everything after "gun crazy."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. Ignore is your friend.

Trust me on this point

[DanTex]

38. Even better, just stick to AR-15.com!

That way it'll be gun nuts only, without any rational progressives to ruin the party!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. your rationale leaves a lot to be desired. --

The official position

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements - like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_position_of_the_Democratic_Party_on_gun_control#ixzz1uiC6U6Ct

[ellisonz]

46. "reinstating the assault weapons ban"

[DanTex]

37. You might be embarrassed, but you're certainly not "refuting" anything.

What I don't agree with is that police "need" to shoot at unarmed, fleeing people. But, incidents such as the police shooting at unarmed, fleeing people are most definitely connected to America's gun craziness.

The only way you seem to be able to "refute" things is to drastically alter their meanings. The author of the article never suggested that police who shoot at unarmed fleeing people can "hide behind gun rights". You just made that up so you could call him a hack.

[TPaine7]

39. What he calls gun craziness is actually the exercise of gun rights. As you well know.

And he tries to tie it to shooting at an unarmed fleeing man.

Incidents such as the police shooting at unarmed, fleeing people are connected to American gun craziness through ideologically driven hysteria, but there is no logical connection.

Grizzly bears are dangerous animals and can easily kill humans. But if I shot one who was sprinting away from me and not threatening anyone else—and tried to use the fact that grizzlies are dangerous as a "reason" or "justification" (or a logical tie or anything similar)—you would readily see the illogic.

I would be hiding behind the dangerous nature of grizzlies in some situations to justify my behavior in a totally unrelated situation.

Even accepting your characterization of America as "gun crazy," there is no logical connection between that and police shooting widly at an unarmed fleeing man, your unsupported denial notwithstanding.

This kind of "reasoning"—connecting logically unrelated things to arrive at a predetermined destination—is characteristic of extreme bias.

[DanTex]

40. "Gun craziness" goes way beyond the "exercise of gun rights".

The gun craziness is what Bill Maher was talking about when he pointed out that the US has a bad relationship with guns; that it's like a religion, or an addiction. There is the glorification of violence. There is the paranoia and conspiracy-mongering of the NRA. And so on.

Yes, there are plenty of links between this and police shooting at unarmed people. For one, our absurdly lax gun laws lead to high levels of gun violence, which makes cops more trigger-happy. And then there's the "gun culture" -- it's not just vigilantes who get caught up in the "shoot first" tough-guy bravado.

[TPaine7]

44. I must humbly fold to a renowned expert on this subject like criminologist (or perhaps I should say

professor of surgery) Bill Maher.

Well played sir!

And of course there is conspiracy-mongering and paranoia--all the work of the evil NRA. And glorification of violence, as dealt out by impenetrable shields, mystic hammers, iron suits of high tech armor, bows and arrows, a green giant with anger management issues and even guns. And if I were a police officer who shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back, that would be why. The NRA, blockbuster movies, conspiracy theories, and "so on" would have made me do it. It's the 21st century twinkie defense.

Yes, there are plenty of links between this and police shooting at unarmed people. For one, our absurdly lax gun laws lead to high levels of gun violence, which makes cops more trigger-happy. And then there's the "gun culture" -- it's not just vigilantes who get caught up in the "shoot first" tough-guy bravado.

I've seen the light, so I couldn't agree more. If you think about it, using the same high level of rigorous logic, you can show that America's "absurdly lax gun laws" lead not only to "high levels of gun violence" but to global warming. You see, it used to be that people walked most places they went, or rode bicycles or horses. Now, due to all the blood in the streets, people use cars. It's not just about spending less time in the crossfire; dry cleaners charge so much these days to get blood out!

[gejohnston]

5. out of those 49 warning shots

how many of those bullets landed on and killed innocent person or their pet a couple miles away?

[slackmaster]

6. The German culture places a high value on marksmanship

They teach their kids to make every shot count.

[Paladin]

19. OK, If You Say So..... (n/t)

[Meiko]

7. Sounds like I need to be

armed just to defend myself against US cops.....

[think]

8. K&R

[DonP]

9. Wow, if I just overlook the millions of their own citizens they killed in the last 60 years ...

... or so, they almost seem like warm and cuddly pacifists.

Sorry, but my Grandfather, a fluent German speaker in the 3rd Army, was one of the first people that walked into two death camps. What he saw and what he heard from the Jews, Gays and Gypsies there haunted him until his death.

I have a hard time considering the Germans as a some kind of peaceful ideal we should mimic.

[DanTex]

20. Not a big fan of "the Germans", I see...

How about "the Americans", with their slavery, and before that the brutal treatment of the Native American population.

[DonP]

22. If I held that up as something to be emulated, the way you did you might have a point.

But nobody did, so you don't.

You're the one posting about how wonderful they are for "ammunition conservation".

I only pointed out how hypocritical it is, considering their track record.

But if there's a statute of limitations for overlooking genocide, please share it with the rest of the class.

[DanTex]

25. Umm... I didn't hold up the Holocaust as something to be emulated.

I just pointed out that German gun policy is far more successful at saving laws than the NRA-inspired lunacy we have in the US. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

[ellisonz]

47. Gunners can't win an argument talking about guns...

...they have to change the subject.

[Simo 1939_1940]

50. What a ludicrous remark, given that it's the pro-control supporter who

is infinitely more likely to be ignorant w/regard to firearm design and function!

If I had large money, I'd bet large money that the majority of those in favor of reinstating the "assault weapons" ban would be completely unable to detail the characteristics and function of the "assault weapon". Same with the descriptor "semi-automatic" which the "control" proponents latched on to directly following the Tucson shooting. Hard to imagine more vivid examples of intellectual dishonesty.

[DanTex]

51. I'd also bet that most people in favor of tighter regulation on Wall Street banks...

...would be unable to detail the characteristics and function of Credit Default Swaps or Collateralized Debt Obligations. They may have heard of the "Volcker Rule", but would be totally incapable of describing an effective way to distinguish proprietary trading from hedging. Etc.

Does that make their concerns invalid? Of course not.

You see, the gun lobby isn't the only right-wing lobby that likes to hide behind technical minutia in order to try to obscure the big picture. At a high-level, it is utterly obvious to any reasonably intelligent and honest person that the lax gun laws in the US result in thousands of needless deaths every year. And it is equally obvious that lax financial regulations almost brought down the world economy.

It's hard to imagine a more vivid example of intellectual dishonesty than the idea that, because someone is unfamiliar with certain technical details of how firearms work, that they can't have an informed opinion on gun policy.

[petronius]

52. And in your analogy, how would you react to people who strenuously

advocated a specific economic policy, in spite of not knowing what the words they were using actually meant, or being able to explain how and why the specific thing they were arguing for would improve Wall Street? I'd call that a vivid example of an uninformed opinion on financial policy, myself...

[DanTex]

55. That would depend on the specific economic policy.

Using the Volcker Rule as an example, I think it's perfectly legitimate to be in favor of it without knowing exact details of how the rule would be written. The principle is clear enough: that banks backed by government guarantees (implicitly or explicitly) shouldn't be engaging in risky proprietary trading. But there are a bunch of technicalities, for example, how can you tell whether something is "proprietary trading" versus "hedging" versus "market making", which very few people without domain expertise would be able to address.

[petronius]

56. Suppose then that this hypothetical person had very strong opinions on

the need to vigorously curtail "market making" (whatever that is), despite not being able to clearly explain why that would be beneficial or even what market making is. Would you not suggest to this person that perhaps their opinion is not as informed as they might wish, and that a bit of research might either lead them to modify it, or at least give them a leg to stand on if they chose to stay the course?

[DanTex]

57. Sure.

If someone felt strongly that investment banks shouldn't engage in market making, without knowing what market making is or why they think it's so bad, then, yes, I would suggest that they read up a little more.

[Simo 1939_1940]

53. Your brazen misrepresentation of *major* issues relating to the design

and function of weapons as "certain technical details" and "technical minutia" is the primary reason I don't waste my time engaging with you, sir.

Have a pleasant evening!

[DanTex]

54. Like ellisonz said, you can't win a substantive debate, so you dodge and change the subject.

[Bennyboy]

58. To the top for todays news...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. Germany is geographically the size of Montana or New Mexico

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

wonder how many rounds those police forces fired at the people in the year 2011?

or should we go for population/demographic comparisons?

whichever...I am sure we can find a comparable state.

anyone got the stats?

thanks.

[gejohnston]

60. what I want to know is

out of the shots fired in the air, how many landed on a school kid a couple miles away.

[jimmy the one]

61. Greetings Fellow Valentine Hearts Salesmen

Spin is living up to his name. Nonfatal injuries caused by firearms used in crime have also fallen significantly. In 1994 there were 1.3 million victims but in 2005 the number had fallen to 477,040.

This is in good part due hospitals & doctors becoming more efficient & proficient in treating gunshot wounds. As well, states with stricter guncontrol laws have the less rate of firearm non fatal accidents, which spin receives reflected glory.

spin (the man): In 2005 there were approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities.

Yet the nra, in fopa 1986, successfully passed a law to enable ex felons & 'career criminals' to have their alleged gun rights restored to them, after a short wait after release & a fee. Only violent felonies (attempted murder, armed robb, aggr asslt, rapists) were excluded, but even then a plea bargain down, or an errant acquittal on a tech, or a dismissal, did not revoke the right to have one's rkba restored. Thanks nra, & so they can argue both sides of the coin on this - it's career crims & felons not law abiders doing all the crime, (but we don't object to most of them having guns!)

spin: 1993 was the peak year for homicides committed by firearms and the total that year was 17,075. Interestingly 1993 was one of the early years in which "shall issue" concealed carry laws were sweeping across our nation state by state.

Interesting but misleading, & junk science as well. There is no study which shows that shall issue ccw leads to lower crime or violent crime - except for gun charlatan john lott's which was funded by olin foundation a subsidiary of winchester ammo, & of which gun guru gary kleck has debunked.
Montana enabled shall issue ccw 1991 & since then the violenct crime rate has near tripled. WVa ~1989 & vcrime rate about doubled, as with both dakotas (tho still low). Pennsy in 1989 & for 20 years vcrime rate remained above, just last couple years marginally falling below. StLouis enabled siccw 2005 & next year had highest vcrime rate in USA. Detroit ~2002 & still no progress downward in murder & vcrime. Chicago allowed handguns in 2008 & today has murder spikes.

spin or his link: In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969
However if you consider only just these two factors (guns, vcrime rate), it is obvious that more firearms and more people legally carrying firearms does not equal more crime.

Lying by statistics, junk science; from mid 60's to mid 90's the national gunstock increased from approx 75 millions to 225 millions, & the nat violent crime rate increased ~100%, doubling. MORE GUNS MORE CRIME... From mid 90s to ~2012 firearms increased from 225 millions to 300, about a 35% increase, while violenct crime rate decreased about 40%.
You, or the gunnut author, cites the decline in violent crime & falsely implies some correlation with more guns, while disregarding the 60's - 90's, AS IF THOSE YEARS NEVER EXISTED.

spin: In the last decade the sale of firearms has skyrocketed yet the violent crime rate has dropped to levels last seen in the late 60s.

Duh, once again, from mid 60s to mid 90's the sale of firearms went to the moon & so did the violent crime rates, MORE GUNS MORE CRIME .... MORE GUNS MORE LIES

[jimmy the one]

62. Waffengesetz auf deutschland

One quick addendum to my above post. From the mid 60's to now, when the national gunstock had increased from 75 millions to 300 millions, an increase of 300% (quadrupling), the violent crime rate has doubled & is now back to where it started, like climbing a mountain & coming back.
If you were to average each of those ~50 years from 1962 - today, and average the total, you'd have an overage, an increase, in avg violent crime rate per year -- thus it can not be said that from mid 60s to now, more guns meant less crime.
A 300% increase in national gunstock from the 60's to 2012 has seen per year, I'd guesstimate about 10% average increase per year, overall.
So stop believing & spreading your 2ndAmendment MYTHOLOGY. Cause you lie.

spin cites nazi waffengesetz: The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law: ***snip***

spin or link author concludes: Obviously if we had a similar history of strong gun control we would have far fewer than 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands Amazingly while tragic, only 11,015 homicides resulted from firearms in 2010.

You should be ashamed, spin, to post this junk science, it's disgraceful & is mythological pro gun propaganda. Read what the truth is, & what explains why you 'snipped' where you did, to mislead:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, govt workers, and {nazi} party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central govt, the states, and employees of the German Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
Nov 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2097041/pg1

[krispos42]

63. Didn't the LAPD beat that just in the past week?

Those poor newspaper carriers.