MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead

[cooleddie74]

Contraception and abortion laws are written and passed almost entirely on emotion, yet I don't hear a lot of people on your side of the political spectrum saying the same thing about those pieces of legislation.

Emotion impacts and affects everything whether you think it does or not. We're not a species of automatons or androids lacking emotion chips or subroutines. To think that we can function as a civilization without our individual or collective emotions impacting the laws we pass and enforce is supremely amusing and naive.

[Data Holmes]

SantaEddie74 wrote:

---

Contraception and abortion laws are written and passed almost entirely on emotion, yet I don't hear a lot of people on your side of the political spectrum saying the same thing about those pieces of legislation.

I've said that contraception should be free, sex Ed should be detailed and informative, and abortion is a tragedy that while should be legal, should be discouraged by all possible means.

Emotion impacts and affects everything whether you think it does or not. We're not a species of automatons or androids lacking emotion chips or subroutines. To think that we can function as a civilization without our individual or collective emotions impacting the laws we pass and enforce is supremely amusing and naive.

You can be emotional but not let it control you to the point of loss of logical thought.

[Locutus of Bored]

NightmareB4Holmes wrote:

---

Us gun murder rates are skewed by the war on drugs and the resulting violence associated with it. If you legalized all drugs, regulated and taxed them just like tobacco and alcohol, and treated addiction as an illness and not a crime, you would drastically cut down the numbers of gun related crime.

That's swell; and in addition to comprehensive gun control laws --which you and your Daily Fail statistics ironically argued in favor of by pointing out that the UK has a higher rate of survivable violent crime than the US, where the homicide rate is nearly four times as high because of the prevalence of guns-- that should really have a significant impact on reducing the murder rate in this country. It's great when we all can agree like this.

I'd suggest we all go have a pint together, but not in the ghastly post-apocalyptic wasteland that is the UK, because you're ten times as likely to get pelted with water balloons and twelve times as likely to be given a purple nurple there than you are in the much less violent US. And really, higher homicide rates be damned, because who'd want to even go on living after suffering either of those things?

[Miss Chicken]

NightmareB4Holmes wrote:

---

UK certified as most violent country in Europe, more violent than USA or South Africa.

Little older, but...

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Some points I would like to make.


The laws that were introduced in 1997 in Australia were bans on guns with high capacity magazines etc not on guns in general. The purpose of the bans was to stop gun massacres. From 1979 to 1996 there were 13 gun massacres in Australia, since 1997 there has been none. There was the Monash shootings in 2002 but that is regarded as a massacre because the death toll was too low (2 died).

The number of guns in Australia is now higher than it was in 1996. and is still rising.


Sexual assault is not the Australian term for rape. It is a term that includes rape, child sexual assault and indecent assault.

[gturner]

The UK's gun murder rate went up when they restricted guns. London had a vastly lower murder rate than New York when New York had restrictive gun laws and London did not.

Why would gun restrictions would result in the UK's homicide rate instead of Mexico's, which also has tight gun laws and a homicde rate four times higher than the US, since unlike the UK but like Mexico, we also have large criminal gangs?

Why should states like Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where gun laws basically just ban carrying a pistol in a courthouse, and which already have a lower homicide rate than the UK, change?

Wouldn't it make more sense to mimic gun laws of North Dakota, Minnesota, or Idaho, which have a fourth the average US homicide rate, instead of copying the gun laws of DC, which has a homicide rate six times higher than the US average?

Russia hasn't allowed civilian gun ownership since the 1920's and has twice our murder rate. France lets anyone own pistols and has a fraction of our murder rate.

Western Europe's gun laws vary widely, as does their rate of gun ownership, yet their homicide rates hardly differ, and the small variation there is contradicts the idea that less guns reduces homicides. Much of the world that has even more restrictive gun laws than Europe has homicide rates twenty times higher.

Even in the US, you can break homicides down demographically and see order of magnitude differences in homicide rates between groups when their access to guns is exactly the same. For example, American women own guns about 80 percent as often as men, yet their intentional homicide rate with firearms is a tenth that of males, so why would we disarm them?

Essentially, trying to reduce the homicide rate by adjusting a variable that either doesn't appear in the equation for homicide rates, or has a small negative coefficient if it does, isn't going to do much of anything. Yesterday Pew released a poll of the American public, who said that gun restrictions would be the second most useless way to prevent tragedies like Newton, right behind forbidding news outlets from mentioning the name of the shooter.

[Rincewiend]

Festivus Toad wrote:

---

Bacteria or water though...that'll get'em.

Or a song...

[Squiggy]

gturner wrote:

---

The UK's gun murder rate went up when they restricted guns.

Immediately thereafter, yes. No one is saying that if you restrict guns that crime will magically go away overnight.

But for the last decade the number of homicides has been dropping. There were 650 murders in the UK in 1997, this year 550.

[MacLeod]

gturner wrote:

---

The UK's gun murder rate went up when they restricted guns. London had a vastly lower murder rate than New York when New York had restrictive gun laws and London did not.

Why would gun restrictions would result in the UK's homicide rate instead of Mexico's, which also has tight gun laws and a homicde rate four times higher than the US, since unlike the UK but like Mexico, we also have large criminal gangs?

Why should states like Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where gun laws basically just ban carrying a pistol in a courthouse, and which already have a lower homicide rate than the UK, change?

Wouldn't it make more sense to mimic gun laws of North Dakota, Minnesota, or Idaho, which have a fourth the average US homicide rate, instead of copying the gun laws of DC, which has a homicide rate six times higher than the US average?

Russia hasn't allowed civilian gun ownership since the 1920's and has twice our murder rate. France lets anyone own pistols and has a fraction of our murder rate.

Western Europe's gun laws vary widely, as does their rate of gun ownership, yet their homicide rates hardly differ, and the small variation there is contradicts the idea that less guns reduces homicides. Much of the world that has even more restrictive gun laws than Europe has homicide rates twenty times higher.

Even in the US, you can break homicides down demographically and see order of magnitude differences in homicide rates between groups when their access to guns is exactly the same. For example, American women own guns about 80 percent as often as men, yet their intentional homicide rate with firearms is a tenth that of males, so why would we disarm them?

Essentially, trying to reduce the homicide rate by adjusting a variable that either doesn't appear in the equation for homicide rates, or has a small negative coefficient if it does, isn't going to do much of anything. Yesterday Pew released a poll of the American public, who said that gun restrictions would be the second most useless way to prevent tragedies like Newton, right behind forbidding news outlets from mentioning the name of the shooter.

So hypothetically if guns were totally banned in the US, that would be a useless way to minimise a tragedy like newton happing again?

Logic alone says that's not true.

And if you are going to quote an article please link to it. Instead of picking up the facts that support your viewpoint

And I'm assuming this is the article in question.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/...t-gun-control/

Picking up a few points from it :-

49% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

42% strongly believe it is more important to control gun ownership, while 37% strongly feel it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 17-19 among 1,219 adults, finds a higher percentage saying that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from crime (48%) than to put their safety at risk (37%).

However, about two-thirds (65%) think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous. Just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer.

There is widespread public opposition to a ban on handguns: Two-thirds (67%) oppose banning the possession of handguns, except by law enforcement officers. Far more favor banning bullets designed to explode or penetrate bullet-proof vests (56%) and high capacity ammunition clips (53%). Opinion is divided over whether to ban semi-automatic guns – 44% favor such a ban, while 49% are opposed.

Women prioritize controlling ownership over gun rights by a 24-point margin, while men prioritize gun rights by a 10-point margin. Racial differences also are striking, as African-Americans overwhelmingly say gun control is more important than gun rights (68% to 24%), while opinion among whites tilts in favor of gun rights (51% to 42%).

Young people (18-29 year olds) continue to support gun control over gun rights (55% vs. 36%), while those 30-64 are more divided on the question. Notably, older Americans (ages 65+) have shifted over the last several months; today they prioritize gun control over gun rights (54% vs. 34%), but were more divided earlier in the year.

* * *

I could continue to paste segments from the article, but if you want to know more.

SO it appears that :-

a.>The majority of Americans favour Gun Control of some sort
b.>The Majority of Americans Favour a ban on Assult Rifles
c.>Women and Ethnic Groups support Gun Control, white men favour gun rights.
d.>In The Article Democrats favour Gun Control, whilst Republicans favour Gun Rights, Independants are more or less split (Read the article)
e.>Younger and older people favour Gun Control, whilst other age group is split.
f.>A majority of Americans thinks gun ownership helps protect people from crime.

[gturner]

MacLeod wrote:

---

So hypothetically if guns were totally banned in the US, that would be a useless way to minimise a tragedy like newton happing again?

Logic alone says that's not true.

Next time some rock star or actor OD's, tell your friends and coworkers that the tragedy wouldn't have happened if only the US had the courage to ban coke, meth, and heroin, and capture their reactions on your smartphone.

If we banned guns, we might drop from about 300 million in circulation to 250 million, or we might not. Chicago banned guns for 28 years, until the Supreme Court recently struck it down, and had daily shootings the whole time. More Americans were getting shot in Chicago than in Afghanistan.

And of course, as always, gun bans are mainly an excuse to throw black men in jail when the cops can't find anything else on them.

[MacLeod]

^Please you aren't comparing someone over dosing (self inflicted) to someone going on a shooting spree are you?

And most gun laws are state controlled aren't they? So one in theory could buy a gun in a less restrictive state. So one solution might be to make a Federal issue rather than a state issue.

So you are saying that there are 250million unregistered guns in the US? After all if guns were banned, law enforcement would just have to pull up details of registered weapons and collect them as per the law.

[gturner]

MacLeod wrote:

---

^Please you aren't comparing someone over dosing (self inflicted) to someone going on a shooting spree are you?

Of course not. El Chapo often has the Sinaloa henchmen use mass decapitations instead of shootings (his wife is a babe, btw). In the US we have about a thousand drug homicides a year, and about 17,000 or so people die from using those drugs, which are banned, of course. If a problem that large can continue in spite of a total ban and intense police focus, throwing a million people in jail, do you really think a ban would work?

These spree shootings, btw, kill about fifty or so a year, far less than the round off errors in the drug homicide estimates.

And most gun laws are state controlled aren't they? So one in theory could buy a gun in a less restrictive state. So one solution might be to make a Federal issue rather than a state issue.

The problem there is that Heller vs DC says that people have a constitutional right to have a commonly used gun for self-defense, and that it must be usable, with no freaky requirements. Another problem is that many state constitutions go further in protecting such rights. In my state, it's uconstitutional to even question the right of the people to bear arms for defense of themselves, and we just added a new provision guaranteeing their right to hunt with traditional weapons like rifles and shotguns.

So you are saying that there are 250million unregistered guns in the US? After all if guns were banned, law enforcement would just have to pull up details of registered weapons and collect them as per the law.

Probably. I used to own ten or twenty unregistered guns.

[Locutus of Bored]

gturner wrote:

---

And of course, as always, gun bans are mainly an excuse to throw black men in jail when the cops can't find anything else on them.

Maybe the cops read the same bullshit unsourced racist statistics about black people being genetically predisposed to violence that you did. You know, the ones that you said no one dares talk about yet you decided to grace us with anyway?

But, no, I'm sure you're deeply concerned with the plight of innocent black men being thrown in jail. Continue, friend of all black people.

gturner wrote:

---

I used to own ten or twenty unregistered guns.

Shocking.

[Aeronef]

gturner wrote:

---

Next time some rock star or actor OD's, tell your friends and coworkers that the tragedy wouldn't have happened if only the US had the courage to ban coke, meth, and heroin, and capture their reactions on your smartphone.

I didn't know that guns were addictive, like coke, meth, and heroin.

Gun junkies. That explains a lot. Thanks.

[cooleddie74]

He's also indirectly admitting that guns kill.

Nice. We're making progress.

[Data Holmes]

He conspiracy theories are starting to come together. http://www.sott.net/article/254873-S...out-of-control