quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

The problem here, is the elimination of all other possible variables. An there are quite a number of possible variables that are going into the 'low crime rate'. 'Firearms on the streets' could be seen as a multiplier effect rather than a number. Meaning 'x2' of 'rate' is going to be much different if the value of 'rate' is '5' compared to '340'. That is why we eliminate possible contributing concepts to deterine if its a number rather than a multiplier.

There are many possible circumstances for the low crime rates. I'll give a few here, but please, do not take this as the whole list or the 'best ideas of shotting down your argument':

A ) Many government programs at the local, state, and federal levels have served their intended purpose: a safety blanket for the poor. That such programs help with paying with rent, food, medicine, even basic living hurdles, are creating less need for people to rob and thieve.

B ) The economy has improved since 2007 when it was spiraling downward to a second 'Great Depression'. People are less nervous about their investments (be they stocks/bonds or their own houses). Aquiring gainful and reasonable employment has kept many from 'making ends meet' by less legal and ethical methods.

C ) As each new 'violent video game' is released, observers have noticed a downward spike in the crime rate. That individuals are fueling their negative emotions towards a virtual world, rather than the physical one. There have been many studies showing this unusual effect.

D ) Thanks to taxpayer money, law enforcement can do its job. That training and support systems in place can make a difference on whether those who would prey on the populous do so or not.

E ) That America has learned from previous events and history of what not to do. That schools are much more observant of bullies towards students. That thanks to science, we are better able to determine not only the 'who' and 'why' of a crime, but the 'how'. That its one thing to track an organized cell, its much hard for the lone wolf; either way, defense systems (passive and active) have been improved upon.

F ) Americans are a better people than conservative, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional gun nuts would have us all believe!

If your going to make the argument, BamaD, that firearms have a direct and contributing effect, by themselves of the crime rate. Its fair to ask for the evidence that supports the viewpoint. Not from a source that is already compromised of its views (i.e. FOX News and other conservative media) or political viewpoint (i.e. NRA and the like). Nor a 'fly by night' operation. That will be very hard to come by. Its possible, just like 'Creationism' could be true. Like Creationism, the evidence to support the view point is at odds to the mountain ranges of other sources contributing to the low crime rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Hmm. . . less people killed (not taken into account the population differences) versus child sexual exploitation being a norm. Hmm. . . where would I like to raise my children? Gosh. So difficult.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-29803799

quote:

Child sex exploitation 'social norm' in Greater Manchester

So glad that you all are SO civilized.


Women have the right to defend themselves taken away and children are left to fend for themselves. Lovely. And you call us barbaric. Hmph.

quote:

Child sexual exploitation has become a "social norm" within some areas of Greater Manchester, according to the author of a report ordered after the Rochdale grooming case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So, the number of legal guns on the street isnt about gun ownership.

That's right. Have a cookie.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
I'm sorry but yes, yes you did, when you implied myself and people who agree with me are less enlightened, enlightenment is a by product of civility, implying we are uncivilized, a synonym for uncivilized is SAVAGE

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/uncivilized


sooo yeahh yeah you did...

quote:

now then I refer to the quote I posted from the article YOU POSTED, using as PROOF, where the Arthur address's the EXACT same things you mention in this post and states even with those things accounted for, "While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States,"

quote:

in other words if you are going to AGRUE AGAINST the evidence YOU POST, well I just don't know how to respond

on one hand you post it as proof then say, well but HE IS WRONG...

last but not least having less people killed is NOT PROOF of your claim, the UK has roughly 1/6th of the population so SIMPLE GRADE SCHOOL MATH says the USA should have a death rate 6 times higher..

in order for you to PROVE your claim you have to show me PRE gun regulation death rate, compared to POST gun regulation and show a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERANCE, and NOT just BY GUNS over all...

you have to show us that since gun laws were enacted, the OVERALL MURDER/VIOLENT death rate DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY. you just can't claim less people are SHOT but the same amount are being killed and say that PROVES IT.

all that proves is the opposite, that if you take away guns people will kill people in ANOTHER WAY.

to be honest, you really SHOULD be able to find stats that reflect this at LEAST slightly, since knives and clubs are less efficient killers than guns, so more people SHOULD be surviving ATTEMPTED MURDERS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So, the number of legal guns on the street isnt about gun ownership.

That's right. Have a cookie.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Hmm. . . less people killed (not taken into account the population differences) versus child sexual exploitation being a norm. Hmm. . . where would I like to raise my children? Gosh. So difficult.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-29803799

quote:

Child sex exploitation 'social norm' in Greater Manchester

So glad that you all are SO civilized.


Women have the right to defend themselves taken away and children are left to fend for themselves. Lovely. And you call us barbaric. Hmph.

Glad to see you are still fucking lying Aylee.

1) I never called Americans barbaric.
2) There figures on gun deaths are pro rata....... get a grown up to explain that to you.
3) Child abuse isnt the norm, the fact you insist spouting bullshit doesnt suddenly make it true.
4) Youre still making shit up.

I am guessing all of the bollocks you keep selectively posting is because you cant deal with facts.

This is from the very first part of your link from the BBC. I have highlighted the bit you left out.

quote:

Child sexual exploitation has become a "social norm" within some areas of Greater Manchester, according to the author of a report ordered after the Rochdale grooming case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

The problem here, is the elimination of all other possible variables. An there are quite a number of possible variables that are going into the 'low crime rate'. 'Firearms on the streets' could be seen as a multiplier effect rather than a number. Meaning 'x2' of 'rate' is going to be much different if the value of 'rate' is '5' compared to '340'. That is why we eliminate possible contributing concepts to determine if its a number rather than a multiplier.

There are many possible circumstances for the low crime rates. I'll give a few here, but please, do not take this as the whole list or the 'best ideas of shooting down your argument':

A ) Many government programs at the local, state, and federal levels have served their intended purpose: a safety blanket for the poor. That such programs help with paying with rent, food, medicine, even basic living hurdles, are creating less need for people to rob and thieve.

B ) The economy has improved since 2007 when it was spiraling downward to a second 'Great Depression'. People are less nervous about their investments (be they stocks/bonds or their own houses). Aquiring gainful and reasonable employment has kept many from 'making ends meet' by less legal and ethical methods.

C ) As each new 'violent video game' is released, observers have noticed a downward spike in the crime rate. That individuals are fueling their negative emotions towards a virtual world, rather than the physical one. There have been many studies showing this unusual effect.

D ) Thanks to taxpayer money, law enforcement can do its job. That training and support systems in place can make a difference on whether those who would prey on the populous do so or not.

E ) That America has learned from previous events and history of what not to do. That schools are much more observant of bullies towards students. That thanks to science, we are better able to determine not only the 'who' and 'why' of a crime, but the 'how'. That its one thing to track an organized cell, its much hard for the lone wolf; either way, defense systems (passive and active) have been improved upon.

F ) Americans are a better people than conservative, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional gun nuts would have us all believe!

If your going to make the argument, BamaD, that firearms have a direct and contributing effect, by themselves of the crime rate. Its fair to ask for the evidence that supports the viewpoint. Not from a source that is already compromised of its views (i.e. FOX News and other conservative media) or political viewpoint (i.e. NRA and the like). Nor a 'fly by night' operation. That will be very hard to come by. Its possible, just like 'Creationism' could be true. Like Creationism, the evidence to support the view point is at odds to the mountain ranges of other sources contributing to the low crime rate.

Your entire volume is based on not understanding my post.
I said that the drop does not conclusively prove that more guns = less crime. It does however disprove the idea that more guns = more crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Please inform us all of the difference between barbaric and unenlightened?

London is your largest city, right? What is the death rate? What would the death rate be if you all had ten to fifteen cities of that size with that death rate? Oh. . . yeah. . . population DOES make a difference.

You still claim that saving one attacker is better than women and children having protection. You really have no use for women and children do you?

It is certainly looking like child sexual exploitation is the norm. How many cases until it is not "okay" and "acceptable" and you get concerned about it?

I copy/pasted the title. I did not leave anything out. Actually, I think that the title counts as the very first part.

So. . . what have I lied about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Please inform us all of the difference between barbaric and unenlightened?

London is your largest city, right? What is the death rate? What would the death rate be if you all had ten to fifteen cities of that size with that death rate? Oh. . . yeah. . . population DOES make a difference.

You still claim that saving one attacker is better than women and children having protection. You really have no use for women and children do you?

It is certainly looking like child sexual exploitation is the norm. How many cases until it is not "okay" and "acceptable" and you get concerned about it?

I copy/pasted the title. I did not leave anything out. Actually, I think that the title counts as the very first part.

So. . . what have I lied about?

As I read through your ideas and thoughts I keep sensing the same tired and used underlying concept of those advocating less firearm rules, regulations and restrictions: fear....Fear.....FEAR!

Is having one or more firearms really a liberty if you living in fear (be it direct, indirect, real or imaginary) of one or more 'somethings'?

I know people that have firearms for all sorts of reasons. Yet some of them feel no safer with a firearm than without. Not because they are afraid of something real or not; but that their level of threat is the same regardless. So for them, they enjoy the liberty for what it is. And there are people that have firearms due to legitimate and imaginary reasons. These people are not practicing a liberty, but living in fear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

How does your theory explain the fact that homicide rates in the United States have fallen more than fifty percent since their peak in the 1980's, while during the same time period the number of legal guns[ on the street more than quadrupled? In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37, and by 2013 a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry.

Your figures on gun ownership could be complete bollocks, unless you give a figure on ownership per person. IE. If I own five guns, and my five neighbours dont own any, it isnt correct to thin five out of six people own guns, is it.

Has it occurred to you that I didn't say anything about gun ownership rates?

Actually, YOU DID.

Actually, you're an idiot.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Please inform us all of the difference between barbaric and unenlightened?

London is your largest city, right? What is the death rate? What would the death rate be if you all had ten to fifteen cities of that size with that death rate? Oh. . . yeah. . . population DOES make a difference.

You still claim that saving one attacker is better than women and children having protection. You really have no use for women and children do you?

It is certainly looking like child sexual exploitation is the norm. How many cases until it is not "okay" and "acceptable" and you get concerned about it?

I copy/pasted the title. I did not leave anything out. Actually, I think that the title counts as the very first part.

So. . . what have I lied about?

As I read through your ideas and thoughts I keep sensing the same tired and used underlying concept of those advocating less firearm rules, regulations and restrictions: fear....Fear.....FEAR!

Is having one or more firearms really a liberty if you living in fear (be it direct, indirect, real or imaginary) of one or more 'somethings'?

I know people that have firearms for all sorts of reasons. Yet some of them feel no safer with a firearm than without. Not because they are afraid of something real or not; but that their level of threat is the same regardless. So for them, they enjoy the liberty for what it is. And there are people that have firearms due to legitimate and imaginary reasons. These people are not practicing a liberty, but living in fear.

WOW!

I never thought that I would actually use this phrase, but here ya go:

CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

29 Things Women Avoid Doing Because We Fear For Our Safety:

1. Get drunk, because you never know if someone might try to assault you when you’re under the influence.
2. Leave our drinks at the bar, unattended, because someone might try to drug them.
3. Move into certain neighborhoods or live on certain blocks, because the harassment is too severe.
4. Meet our creepy landlords, the cable guy, or the electrician by ourselves, because it makes us feel unsafe.
5. Travel solo, because there are certain places where it’s just not safe to be a woman traveling alone.
6. Try couch-surfing, because staying at a stranger’s house seems like an invitation for trouble.
7. Run alone at night, because we fear attackers.
8. Talk back to harassers, because you never know if the abusive words will escalate to violent actions.
9. Meet a stranger — for a date or to buy something on Craigslist — without telling a friend exactly where we’ll be, because we’re aware there’s always the threat of danger.
10. Walk home at night without holding our keys out, because you never know when you might need a makeshift weapon.
11. Wear flimsy clothing when we’re out walking by ourselves, because harassers see it as an invitation to bother us.
12. Wear loud or outrageous clothing, either, because that’ll invite comment from strange men too.
13. Wear anything that will expose our breasts or remind men that we’re women, because that’s seen as an invitation for leers.
14. Wear a ponytail, because it will make it easier for an attacker to grab our hair.
15. Wear high heels, because it’ll make it harder to run faster if we need to.
16. Engage in small talk with a man, because he may interpret it as an invitation to come on to us in a lecherous way.
17. Make eye contact with strangers, because it’s seen as an invitation to approach us.
18. Even smiling can be seen as tacit approval to talk or approach us.
19. Eat food in public — like ice cream cones — that might attract unwanted male attention.
20. Ride our bikes late at night, because we don’t want to deal with the harassment.
21. Stay at a party or a show after our friends have gone home, because we don’t want to worry about being stranded in a potentially threatening situation.
22. Get into a subway car with just men in it, because we’re afraid something might happen. Instead, we scope out subway cars with other women already in them.
23. Walk around late at night with headphones on and blasting music, because we’re afraid attackers might come up behind us.
24. Answer the door to unexpected visitors, just in case it’s someone who got into the building randomly, who might be planning to attack.
25. Let the cab driver/our date drop us off directly in front our buildings, because we don’t want random guys to know where we live.
26. Walk directly home, sometimes, if we’re afraid someone is following us. Instead, we’ll stop at a neighborhood bar and pretend we’re meeting someone.
27. Give our last names to strangers or potential dates, because it makes it that much easier for a stranger to find out where you live, or where you work.
28. Stay late at our offices by ourselves, because of the potential of being attacked.
29. Use an ATM that’s outside or isolated, because we fear being attacked.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliegerstein/29-things-women-avoid-doing-out-of-fear-for-our-safety

The misogyny is strong with this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

The problem here, is the elimination of all other possible variables. An there are quite a number of possible variables that are going into the 'low crime rate'. 'Firearms on the streets' could be seen as a multiplier effect rather than a number. Meaning 'x2' of 'rate' is going to be much different if the value of 'rate' is '5' compared to '340'. That is why we eliminate possible contributing concepts to determine if its a number rather than a multiplier.

There are many possible circumstances for the low crime rates. I'll give a few here, but please, do not take this as the whole list or the 'best ideas of shooting down your argument':

A ) Many government programs at the local, state, and federal levels have served their intended purpose: a safety blanket for the poor. That such programs help with paying with rent, food, medicine, even basic living hurdles, are creating less need for people to rob and thieve.

B ) The economy has improved since 2007 when it was spiraling downward to a second 'Great Depression'. People are less nervous about their investments (be they stocks/bonds or their own houses). Aquiring gainful and reasonable employment has kept many from 'making ends meet' by less legal and ethical methods.

C ) As each new 'violent video game' is released, observers have noticed a downward spike in the crime rate. That individuals are fueling their negative emotions towards a virtual world, rather than the physical one. There have been many studies showing this unusual effect.

D ) Thanks to taxpayer money, law enforcement can do its job. That training and support systems in place can make a difference on whether those who would prey on the populous do so or not.

E ) That America has learned from previous events and history of what not to do. That schools are much more observant of bullies towards students. That thanks to science, we are better able to determine not only the 'who' and 'why' of a crime, but the 'how'. That its one thing to track an organized cell, its much hard for the lone wolf; either way, defense systems (passive and active) have been improved upon.

F ) Americans are a better people than conservative, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional gun nuts would have us all believe!

If your going to make the argument, BamaD, that firearms have a direct and contributing effect, by themselves of the crime rate. Its fair to ask for the evidence that supports the viewpoint. Not from a source that is already compromised of its views (i.e. FOX News and other conservative media) or political viewpoint (i.e. NRA and the like). Nor a 'fly by night' operation. That will be very hard to come by. Its possible, just like 'Creationism' could be true. Like Creationism, the evidence to support the view point is at odds to the mountain ranges of other sources contributing to the low crime rate.

Your entire volume is based on not understanding my post.
I said that the drop does not conclusively prove that more guns = less crime. It does however disprove the idea that more guns = more crime.

No, you are not understanding what I'm explaining. That the crime has gone down to many other contributing factors that have been studied and verified independently through multiple sources. Without those factors in place or 'in play', would crime increase due to the number of firearms? Oh hell yeah! Desperate people, with easy access to firearms, and no distraction/safety net to handle their needs/wants....increases crime and violence.

What I am explaining is that the concept of firearms has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a positive contributing factor in lessening crime or violence. That you or others (more likely others) would have to remove many obvious reasons for the reduction in crime and violence from other sources, to show if private firearm ownership reduces crime and violence. That is going to be tough for two reasons:

1 ) The source that publishes such a document would be HEAVILY scrutinized. They would have to have some really well qualified and credible researchers whom can show they are not doing this for a political outcome nor financial benefit.

2 ) The funding for such a ground breaking study would need to be entirely independent of individuals, groups, and other organizations that would gain or profit by its release. Likewise, if the funding came through shadowy sources that are hard to track down would heavily undermine any credibility.

I'm not saying that 'firearms = bad', or 'firearms = good'. I'm asking if the evidence that shows firearms by themselves, are a positive contributing factor in the overall reduction of crime and violence. That going through the trouble to construct such a study, collect the data objectively and be able to publish the evidence in full with conclusion, would be VERY hard on those secretly trying to push an agenda if the end result was not to their liking.

I can accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are indeed a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. Obviously, it would be curious to know how the study was formed, tested, and analysed. What things were tested and was was not. And the 'why's and 'why nots' with it. I can...ALSO....accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are not a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. This means, that we are testing a belief system to see if it holds up to scientific scrutiny.

The question I have here, BamaD, is: Can you handle either outcome (or possibility a third, undefined outcome) like an responsible adult? Even if that outcome is not advantageous to you politically and/or financially?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

The misogyny is strong with this one.

Your just proving my point. The reason to obtain a firearm has nothing to do with enjoying the liberty but living in fear of the 'What If' moment(s). What do you think that does to a person over months and years? Living with that sort of worry, stress, aggravation, and anxiety? Is that really how one practices liberty? To be free?

Fear is the opposite concept to liberty.

Why does one learn a martial art? I've heard the whole list. That 'defending myself' is not at the top of the list, says something of the individual. They do it to get in shape, lose weigh, meet people, learn something new, and challenge themselves to greater height. That 'learning self-defense' is the positive by-product of the skill. Someone learning self defense to become more aggressive towards an entity real or imaginary is setting the person up for problems down the road. Those folks are taken aside and asked serious questions. Not to belittle them, but figure out if there is reasonable alternatives to combat the problem; so that their learning of a martial art could be a positive experience for them long term. Firearms, like any other 'self-defense' system is the same way.

I have no problem with someone that wants to use their firearm to go hunting (or teach the young how to hunt). Nor target shooting to relieve stress, competitive shooting, or historical reenactments. Nor of those that wish to collect but keep such arms safe from unauthorized individuals (like a museum devoted to firearms). But we are not talking any of these activities with 'your list'.

"I have a gun so that idiot ex of mine doesn't fuck with me or my kids" is not showing liberty, but living with fear. And there are many women that this is sadly a reality. That we as a society fail them. To find ways to combat their fears, reduce their stress of their fear manifesting itself, and hopefully letting them live a better life. That we give them a firearm is such a poor excuse to failing in our responsibility as a society to do something better. What that 'better' is, is a good question.

I have heard some of your back story, and I *REALLY* do wish and hope things are improving for you.

quote:

A Connecticut State Police Trooper pulled over an old 1955 Cadillac for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the car, he noticed a little old lady behind the wheel.

The police officer asked the old lady for her license, registration, and insurance cards; however, when she opened up her pockbook to retrieve those cards, to his surprise he noticed a concealed weapon carry permit.

The trooper took all the documents, looked them over and said. "Mrs. Smith, I see you have a concealed weapon permit. Do you have a gun with you?"

Very sweetly and proudly the little old lady replied, " oh, yes officer, I have a Smith & Wesson 38 caliber pistol right here in my bag. Do you wish to see it?" And before he could reply, the old lady opened her handbag under his nose and sure enough, he immediately recognized the distinctive snub barrel of a Smith & Wesson 38.

Kind of taken aback, as a matter of formality he cautiously asked her, "do you have any other guns with you?"

To which the old lady boasted, " I also have a 357 magnum in my glove compartment", opening its cover and revealing its huge barrel.

The officer, flabbergasted, found himself then asking before any further thought on his part, but not really expecting anything more: "anything else?"

To which she replied, "why, yes, I also have a 44 magnum in my console, and a Mossberg 500 12 gauge shootgun in the trunk."

As you can imagine, at this point the police officer was at a total loss as to why an old lady would have in her possession such an arsenal of weapons, so thinking she was a bit crazy, he bent over, looked her in the eyes, and asked, "Lady, may I ask you what you are afraid of?"

To which the old lady locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered, "Not a damn thing!"