Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by martint235, Nov 10, 2017.
Comparing homicide rates vs actual body count.
Chicago has a higher body count.
Actually. Rappers do.
You do know the definition of homicide, right?
Reducing accessibility by what means?
Funding for enforcement is always needed.
As for the prisons, in the short term, no not economical, but the long term goal is deterrence.
When Jimmy realizes his buddy ain't ever getting out, it might change his behavior.
The old "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" deals.
This has been studied extensively. General deterrence, as you described, doesn't work well at preventing crime. It pretty much doesn't work on any level when it comes to homicide crimes. The more serious the crime, the less deterrence works. The less serious the crime - eg petty theft - the more deterrence works. People aren't using the logic side of their brain when committing murder, usually.
As mentioned in the other thread I believe that “keep and bear arms” can be met by keeping guns in clubs. After that any gun on the street is illegal.
I’ve started a pointless thread though as the death toll still isn’t high enough to convince people change is necessary
Yes... you're not getting what I'm saying.
A per capita rate is misleading in that higher populations can appear to be safer when using the per 100,000 rate.
Reality is there are more people killed in Chicago (762 in 2016) than St. Louis (188 in 2016).
--- Post Merged, Nov 10, 2017 ---
No thank you.
A gun locked up in another location does nothing to protect my family.
As the saying goes... when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
--- Post Merged, Nov 10, 2017 ---
And more people are murdered each year in China than Guatemala. I know which I’d feel safer in.
Reality is unfortunately that proportionally more people are being shot in the states than any other western country
Agreed, but the goal is to create the deterrence before one gets to the point of commuting actual act.
Just looking for options.
I don’t have a gun. Have never held one. I’ve also never had my house broken into in nearly 50 years of life. The chances of someone entering my house with a gun are much less than yours.
When does the proliferation of guns make people wake up?
I’m not a member of BLM but I’m starting to find these threads somewhat racist because if you really want to post “another shooting” thread you’d be posting one every 2 minutes if you take poor minority areas into consideration.
It's nice to know that you live in a utopia where no one ever breaks into houses.
Not the case here. They happen everyday in Phoenix.
A criminal doesn't need to have a gun to be a threat. Most who do get caught usually do not have a firearm on them.
Someone breaking into my house with or without a gun, is a danger to my family and will be dealt with accordingly.
I politely object. I’m not racist by any measure. However I am based in the UK so my access to individual shootings is limited
Both my neighbours have been broken into. It’s not utopia. I have enough skills to deal with someone without a firearm
But in the states you’ve entered into a spiral of arms. He has a 9mm so I need a magnum etc. The criminals aren’t going to wind it down so you need to restrict their supply
Agree completely. In the heat of the moment people tend to either think they will never get caught or just don't think of the consequences.
All it takes is having the means, motive and opportunity. Nice that we hand out the means like candy.
And therein lies your problem.
The best thing we can do in that regard is education and investment. It is crazy how quickly crime diminishes when a community gets access to good education and solid jobs.
I’m not saying you are racist. I just believe a lot of people see poor people or gang related shootings as that’s just what they do, shouldn’t be added to the tally board or given individual weight.
Met them quite a few times gigging around Cardiff
Like candy? Really?
I must have missed this part of the gun store.
A typical handgun runs well over $500 for a low end model. And don't show me HiPoint prices. Those pieces of **** are more effective as a club than a gun.
Oh absolutely. I’ll agree with that. It’s a person shot. I really don’t care about the colour or the reason. A dead heroin addict is still a dead person
Yah the NRA mouthpiece for gun lobby has almost got us all to where we think we need one (hey one is good, six better?) because everyone else has one and some of them are bad guys so the good guys need to arm up. "Everyone has one" is a self fulfilling prophecy if they rope in enough marks that way.
One to hunt, one for self defense, I guess that can make sense in the boondocks. My county's rural and mountainous so if you get some bad guy passing through who decides to spend the night at your place, well.. that deputy's a long ways from where you live and there aren't many of them to begin with. We're stone broke in this county thanks to no jobs and assorted tax deals made to entice manufacturers still here to stay here...
But: we're awash in guns. We probably have enough to kill each other in this county three times over although the claim around here is that we use them for hunting. Yet the guys don't hunt with the ARs they buy... they just use those out in the high hills on weekends pretending to be counterterrorist forces of light. Or... whatever the beer tells them.
But when Clinton was running for office they all went out and got another semi-auto of some sort "just in case". Just in case what? Just in case the gunmakers' quarterly profits weren't going to make Wall Street projections? Just in case those pink Remingtons weren't selling?
I asked a guy here once why not just buy shares in a gunmaker instead of more of their product since you already have firepower enough? He looked at me like I was crazy. I said really, why not? I asked him again after Trump had won the election. He said because everybody already has a gun and nobody's afraid of Trump taking your guns so there's no market and soon they'll go broke. Now I hear Congress is being lobbied to relax restrictions on export of American-made weaponry... imagine my surprise.
These guys still hunt deer (when they bother) with their dad's or granddad's rifle so the claim about what all these extra and semi-auto guns are for is bogus. It's semi-auto guns for... for the hell of it. They scare the poor deer up into the steep hills with all their weekend BS well before the rut even begins. It used to be quiet until mid November when you could hear people siting their hunting gear for regular season. Now it's not like that and all the "sport practice" every weekend makes the deer really wary by time even bowhunting season opens. If there's no snow to enable easier tracking then no one gets anything any more until well after the regular season when it's really cold and the too many deer start wandering down to see if there's any shrubs they can eat in the near townside yards. Then we start getting them and the pregnant does with our cars again so really who needs even a deer rifle?
I don't know where the line is on how many guns one person could need. You hear once in awhile about these kooks that have amassed thousands of them. How does someone get from owning a few shotguns and rifles and a handgun to deciding there's no such thing as too many?
Is ten enough? I mean these are not like iPods... where some "kook" like me has one for the operas and a bunch of 2nd gen little nanos for assorted rock playlists plus a couple old iPhones stocked with movies, music videos, Steve and Tim's Apple keynotes lol...
How many damn lethal weapons guns does one private citizen need. I'm not talking antique collections. I'm talking guys that run down I-95 and buy a bunch and come back and sell them on the street out the back of a car where the gun laws are tight. There's law on straw purchases. Where's the enforcement on both ends of those interstate transactions? Where's the common sense in the state that has the you-can-buy-10-a-month or whatever?
I don't get all the winks and nods in enforcement. Not when there's so much slaughtering going on. We're not killing deer and defending against burglars with this stuff. We're letting people play Rambo and depart from reality wnen they get angry and happen to be able to lay hands on super-efficient killing machinery. How do so many guns end up in people's hands when they can't clear the background checks or manage not to have to pass them?
And as for legit purchases, why do people keep buying them when stats show they're more likely to end up in trouble over them than to use them safely in some legitimate circumstance? Shall we ask the guy in the story below? But would he still say it's his 2A right to have had that gun? Sure he would. And... so far, it is, unless he gets the book thrown at him over the charges he's facing. It's just while he's on bond that he can't have his weapons...
That is a long and meaningful post and yet my only response is [sad] .
I agree with all of it
Just to boil this down:
More guns = more shootings