U.S. Politics - Page 583 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5821  
Old 12-20-12, 23:51
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
So Gerard Depardieu, the only frenchman with a backbone, is going Galt. How long before Americans do the same?
Californians are leaving Cali. Does that count?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5822  
Old 12-21-12, 00:19
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
And they are almost always linked to some mental illness and jumpers usually befuddle mental health professionals because it's deemed the most impulsive.

So now we have to bann tall buildings and bridges.
Tall buildings and guns huh? Well of the two which is more useful and necessary for modern living?
And it's ban not bann.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #5823  
Old 12-21-12, 00:54
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,033
Default

Quote:
the idea was put out there by MI to eliminate all civilian firearms from the public place. Outlaw CCP's.

How does that position square with data suggesting incarcerated criminals, in surprisingly large numbers, have had their criminal operation altered by a would be victim carrying a gun?
Quote:
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
The problem with this study is that it was based on “surveys”. IOW, people were asked if they had used guns to defend themselves from crime. Here is what the NYer article says about that:

Quote:
Look at the Harvard social scientist David Hemenway’s work on gun violence to see how simple it is; the phrase “more guns = more homicide” tolls through it like a grim bell...(Hemenway is also the scientist who has shown that the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.) Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances.”
I don't think the relationship between gun ownership and murders is quite as simple as the NYer article insists. But when the Right and Left argue over a matter that can be resolved by science and statistics, everyone knows who is usually correct.

Quote:
How does that position square with data suggesting murder rates fall (depending on data looked at, something like 60% of murders committed are gun related) or continue to fall when CCP's are more broadly legal?
According to the Harvard Study, that's misleading. The studies you cite show that in states where gun ownership is legal, being allowed to carry a concealed weapon reduces homicides. But the larger point is that the homicide rate in those states is still much higher than it would be if guns were not legal in the first place.

Quote:
The argument is: is it the gun that's the problem and will we overreact in such a way that makes more people less safe?
60% of the U.S., including me, don't own a gun and will not own a gun. Since we are not carrying a gun to protect ourselves, any ban on guns can only make us safer. There is no way it can make us less safe. (Well, OK, if we are in a group, say in a movie theater, and someone in the audience has a gun and shoots the intruder. I'll take my chances on a ban over this possibility).

As for my proposal, I'm not naive, I know it won't happen, the part of banning all guns in public. But schools could check everyone who enters. To repeat, it doesn't have to involve metal detectors and a lot of hassle. Someone can be checked in a few seconds. And it wouldn't even have to be a matter of law. Leave the decision up to individual school districts. If some districts decide it's not worth it, and there is an incident, let the people who made the decision bear the consequences.

Last edited by Merckx index; 12-21-12 at 01:48.
Reply With Quote
  #5824  
Old 12-21-12, 01:43
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
So Gerard Depardieu, the only frenchman with a backbone, is going Galt. How long before Americans do the same?
The only Frenchman with a backbone? An increasingly obnoxious and socially irrelevant public embarrassment of a drunk actor moves to Belgium because of their lower taxes? So ****ing what?

Rich French and Dutch have been living in Belgium for decades. This is not news, and your attempt at making some kind of point is ludicrously far-fetched.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5825  
Old 12-21-12, 02:07
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
The only Frenchman with a backbone? An increasingly obnoxious and socially irrelevant public embarrassment of a drunk actor moves to Belgium because of their lower taxes? So ****ing what?

Rich French and Dutch have been living in Belgium for decades. This is not news, and your attempt at making some kind of point is ludicrously far-fetched.
Big surprise. Socialist is not bothered by the government taking three quarters of people's hard earned euros.

You should prove what a superior person you are by giving 75% of your income to the state.
Reply With Quote
  #5826  
Old 12-21-12, 02:09
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
Tall buildings and guns huh? Well of the two which is more useful and necessary for modern living?
And it's ban not bann.
You guys don't give a wit about modern living. We don't need tall buildings any more than we need internal combustion engines or fossil fuels.

I like bann. I'm using bann.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5827  
Old 12-21-12, 02:17
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
The problem with this study is that it was based on “surveys”. IOW, people were asked if they had used guns to defend themselves from crime. Here is what the NYer article says about that:



I don't think the relationship between gun ownership and murders is quite as simple as the NYer article insists. But when the Right and Left argue over a matter that can be resolved by science and statistics, everyone knows who is usually correct.



According to the Harvard Study, that's misleading. The studies you cite show that in states where gun ownership is legal, being allowed to carry a concealed weapon reduces homicides. But the larger point is that the homicide rate in those states is still much higher than it would be if guns were not legal in the first place.



60% of the U.S., including me, don't own a gun and will not own a gun. Since we are not carrying a gun to protect ourselves, any ban on guns can only make us safer. There is no way it can make us less safe. (Well, OK, if we are in a group, say in a movie theater, and someone in the audience has a gun and shoots the intruder. I'll take my chances on a ban over this possibility).

As for my proposal, I'm not naive, I know it won't happen, the part of banning all guns in public. But schools could check everyone who enters. To repeat, it doesn't have to involve metal detectors and a lot of hassle. Someone can be checked in a few seconds. And it wouldn't even have to be a matter of law. Leave the decision up to individual school districts. If some districts decide it's not worth it, and there is an incident, let the people who made the decision bear the consequences.
Quote:
Since we are not carrying a gun to protect ourselves, any ban on guns can only make us safer. There is no way it can make us less safer.
Really? Once the criminal elements know for certain nobody is carrying except them gun violence will certainly be reduced or eliminated.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5828  
Old 12-21-12, 02:22
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,315
Default

Allow me to make some statistical comparisons between the US, and countries without a legalized, obsessive gun culture. Then, consider where you would feel safer and happier for your children and grandchildren to be growing up.

Here's a comparison that's germane to this debate. These are comparative murder rates (not broken down as gun-related or not, just homicides, though the largest proportion of homicides everywhere are gun-related) for cities of roughly comparable sizes, Amsterdam, my current home town, and Baltimore, my nearest city when I'm in the US.

Amsterdam 2010 - 16
Amsterdam 2011 - 16

Baltimore 2010 - 223
Baltimore 2011 - 197

Holland 2011 (16m+ people) - 163

Between 1996-2005, there were an average of 230 Dutch homicides per year, of which 42%, or 100 were gun-related. This works out to around four murders per week, of which around 1.5 were gun related - this is with a population of 16 million!

Using the same percentage of 42% for the 2011 figure, as the 1996-2005 study used, we see that just less than 70 people were killed by guns in all Holland in 2011.

The figures for the UK are even lower. Despite a population that is roughly 4-5 times larger than Holland's, the UK averages 54 gun deaths per year.

The latest US figures I found (from the CDC) show the following for 2009 -

All homicides: 16,799

Firearm homicides: 11,493

The population of the US is 20 times that of Holland, and approximately five times that of the UK. Having less, or no guns around, has a statistically profound affect on the number of gun related deaths when compared to widespread access to, and availability of - guns. What a surprise.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5829  
Old 12-21-12, 02:27
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post

You should prove what a superior person you are by giving 75% of your income to the state.
I am not a multimillionaire.

I'm not here to defend French fiscal or tax policies. Holding up Depardieu as an example of anything other than a sad drunk, is simply one of your typically inane red herrings that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about here.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #5830  
Old 12-21-12, 02:38
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,315
Default

Finally, this shocker. Good night, I trust that you all will be here tomorrow!

__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.