The lack of information about shootings is stupefying. My company does "outcomes" systems and no law-enforcement agency wants to report on them. When we make a proposal to a law enforcement agency of "hey, we can show you exactly how well X program is working to deter/address crime", we get told to fuck off in record time. There is a HUGE lack of accountability on the part of law-enforcement in terms of "what works here". This is perplexing, because of the drop in crime you'd think there would be tons of people/agencies rushing to take credit for the change. There's not much information, and what information there is indicates that a lot of programs are counter-productive. Programs like DARE and Scared Straight actually made participants MORE likely to use drugs/break laws and they went on for years. It's a political cluster-fuck. I think the general push is towards treating this as a public health issue because the states are spending tons of money on health outcomes and that's the only justification for it: if the violence continues, you would have thousands of individuals who are receiving state benefits for decades to the tune of billions for injuries like missing limbs, paralysis and organ damage from stray bullets. At least that seems to be the case in cities like Philly and Baltimore. Regarding the Mass Shooting Tracker: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3o9adl/auditing_the_mass_shooting_tracker/ I played this game with my girl, but how outrageously different would it be to have universal health care? Like, insurance for things like cars and houses would dramatically decline... You could play sports without a massive entity (like a college) protecting you from financial ruin.... You could have an accident without someone being sued.... Your employer could convert the insurance policies they currently pay for into something more fitting a benefit and not a basic need.... I think about all the bullshit bureaucrats, insurance leeches and ambulance chasers that would effectively be out of a job.... I'm moving to Australia or Canada.
Interesting... Admiral: North Korea can hit US with long-range nuclear missile http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ith-long-range-nuclear-missile/?intcmp=hplnws Does anyone else think this story was planted just to make Best Korea think we consider them a greater threat then they are? I find it hard to believe that a country that launched it's first successful satellite just 3 short years ago now has the capabilities to lob missles 6000+ miles. (For comparison, most satellites are in low Earth orbit which is between 99 and 127 miles. 100 mile range to 6000 seems like a hell of a jump in 3 years. Then again, it may all be in the way it was worded too, maybe he meant they could hit a US military base in South Korea, which yeah...I could see that.
It smells like a whole lot of panic-button horse shit. This country missed the OCEAN with a missile a few years ago. I have a hard time believing they are a threat in virtually anything except a mass ground assault. It would take them years just to get their nuclear plant running in order to make the Urianium necessary for such a weapon, and their technology is comparable to Atari. Even if they managed to launch one of their shitty missiles, forget not the most powerful defence system in the world would shoot said projectile down like a joke, and NK would then be answering to an Air Force and Navy larger than the next eleven largest armed forces in the world PUT TOGETHER.
North Korea could probably do some damage if it came to it...either here, Hawaii or to strategic partners like SK or Japan. That's why they have existed in such a precarious state for 50 years. They are like the porcupine of nation states...silly and harmless until you poke it. They are simply not worth fucking with, until they bring nuclear into the equation. That's not to say there couldn't be a perfect storm where NK Sparks world war three. The other thing worth mentioning is that the hermit kingdom has pretty large reserves of rare earths (like uranium) that make them of strategic importance. If NK used a nuke, it would be genocide in retribution, and we might take the ruling Chinese party down with us. What's much more likely is that said nuke is used either on themselves (i.e. An oopsie) or they get caught trying to sell it. Either way, a kid who's only supposed to have sparklers may be sporting a .357. No Bueno. The nuclear technology has existed for over 70 years...it's safe to say they figured it out.
Apparently people don't like bacon anymore. Who knew? Finally, the government has decided to eliminate pork — from the menu in federal prisons https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...minate-pork-from-the-menu-in-federal-prisons/ And CAIR celebrates.
Here's an interesting study done by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on gun control. For a very liberal university, I think some of you may find their findings surprising. http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1
Unfortunately since that study was conducted in 2007, some facts have changed: Virginia Tech in 2007 had 32 killed and Newtown had 26 killed.
This is not meant to squelch any conversation on this topic. I am tired of it though. I'm tired of the red herrings (safety, mental defect, etc.). Since no one has answered my question (posed many moons ago), I'll answer it. The solution is simple. If you want less gun deaths, you need less guns. The idea that you can double down on a bad idea (we have more legal guns by a lot than any other society on earth) and get a good result - i.e. less gun deaths - has been disproven time and time again. I'm not advocating for anything at this point, all I'm saying is that if your goal is to lower gun deaths, then you need to get rid of some guns.
This is a great idea! Let's just rid of the ones that were or will be used in a violent crime. How do we do that? How many guns are there total, and if we got rid of just those, how many would that be?
You start by collecting information about the gun violence and what's being done about it already. But yeah, it's pretty simple: guns=danger. Want to be safe from gun violence, from a statistical perspective? Reduce your proximity to guns. An interesting idea: the 2nd amendment was created so the Feds wouldn't have to respond to slave insurrections, the local authorities could do it with a militia. At the time of the writing, the militia was pretty well understood to be ineffective in terms of military force. The only thing they would be good at is keeping local peace in cases of riots or revolts.
Here's something that would drastically reduce gun violence, but no one is going to like it: Felon in possession of a firearm = death penalty Stealing a firearm = death penalty Possession of a stolen firearm = death penalty The guns aren't the inherent problem, the criminals are.
I think this is completely false, and you can't make blanket statements like that. Using your argument, the children at Sandy Hook, for instance (if you believe it really happened, haha!) should have been statistically very safe. There are also plenty of situations where people were in danger - say a crazy guy has already stabbed someone and is waving a knife around - and a police officer, who was in very close proximity to a gun, was able to eliminate that danger.
Really? No kidding, the criminals are the problem. Here's the problem with your solution. Criminals are created after the criminal act. You don't wake up a criminal, then say 'oh, I don't want to be a criminal.' Doesn't happen. You like guns. That's ok. But understand the price we pay for it. I know, you need to say 'Oh, hey, not MY gun.' Maybe. But ultimately these 'criminals' usually get legal weapons. The more you leave lying around, the more that get used. And yes, this is opinion, and I have a bias. Having a loaded weapon pointed at me that was legal will do that.
I've had loaded guns pointed at me too. And I do agree with you, if you look back a few pages when I mentioned that gun owners need to be more responsible. There are way to many guns that are being stolen because of the owner's indifference. Those are the guns I worry about much more then the ones that were legally obtained. There's a simple solution to that, don't steal a gun, don't be a felon in possession of a gun. It takes more work to actually commit the crime then it does not to commit it.
I don't think it would be unreasonable to hold firearms owners liable for crimes committed from guns stolen from them in negligent scenarios. More access to firearms safety education would mean more responsible firearms owners and hopefully less unsecured guns out there too. Seems like data shows there's a lot of violent crimes committed with guns by repeat violent and firearm offenders, and I've said it before and will repeat it again that we need to crack down harder on firearm offenders and enforcing the laws that are aimed at keeping guns out of their hands. Plus we can require NICS checks on all handgun sales to try and prevent them from illegally getting guns in the first place too. Obviously this won't prevent everyone from getting a gun who shouldn't, but if we want to address firearms themselves I think that should be the first step.
I'm definitely guilty of benefiting from the gun show loophole. Mostly because I was gonna get bent over a barrel by selling it to a licensed dealer. The guy did have a CCL though so I didn't do a background check. That said, it seems scary to me that someone would be ok with selling a gun to just any person willing to pay without doing even a minimal check to see if the person is allowed to own a gun.
Statistically, owning a gun is more dangerous. Look at suicide attempts (more successful with a gun), accidental discharges (more fatal with a gun), wrongful deaths by police officers (more likely than from a taser or a baton), hunting accidents and so on. The whole gun-brandishing hero myth is cool but statistically rare. I am also not buying how only in this country is it ok to shoot someone crazy to death. In Germany they shoot you in the fucking leg.
Well cops in the US make no attempt to serve the people. They are law enforcement only. Taking their guns sounds like a good idea.
There are plenty of those situations and they are astronomically outnumbered by the precise opposite. Um, yeah...kids in elementary schools without guns are safe. Elementary schools where the kids have guns are not safe. You do understand what I mean by "statistically", and not anecdotal evidence, right? Again substitute any other weapon you want for "guns" and you will interpret that situation as inherently more dangerous.
I understand everyone is wadded up over guns, I know it is hard to avoid the media and their agenda, they want disarmament. Let's play out the disarmament scenario and I'm not talking about the potential of violence related to disarmament. I'm talking about what comes after. We now have removed guns from the equation but haven't begun to address the actual problem within our society which really are the caustic public policies which, in my opinion, lead people to isolation and desperation then eventually to violence in some instances. What will these people do without guns? Will they use knives? No, I don't think so. Look around the shelves of your grocery store and hardware store. Bleach, amonia, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, muriatic acid, drain cleaner, amonium nitrate. Pair this with widely available information on the internet on how to create a poor mans detonator and trigger and what do you have? People can make chemical and high explosive weapons very easily in an untraceable and uncontrolled manner, sure they will eventually be caught but that isn't the point. They can and will make weapons that will make you beg for the return of school shootings. It's sad to think these things and to hold my fellow countrymen in such low repute but that it the reality in which we live. Until we start looking at our system and address how it alienates and ostracizes people into the margins to the point where they feel hopeless, this problem won't go away guns or no guns.