Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

"In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender"
Rare event?
The survey also notes:
"In 2007-11, about 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police, compared to 46% of nonfirearm violence (table 10). Among the nonfatal firearm victimizations that went unreported in 2007-11, the most common reasons victims gave for not reporting the crime was fear of reprisal (31%) and that the police could not or would not do anything to help (27%)."
Yah that's hundreds of thousands of people quite chuffed they didn't get fucked up by Salon pedos or cheeki offenders

Well you can add the plusses and minuses, but it all leads to the overall homicide statistics doesn't it? Yeah, more people defend themselves with a gun in the USA than other countries. But is that actually working to prevent people getting killed? Apparently not, since the USA's homicide rate is 5 times that of the UK. Sure, maybe the occasional person in the UK could have prevented their own death if guns were legal, but opening that can of worms would see you with a 5x murder rate on the overall.

If you're promoting gun legalization in the UK then don't hide behind "protecting the weak" because all the statistics suggest that that is bullshit. The weak are not safer in the USA because of guns. Just say you want to be able to defend yourself with a gun, and don't really care how many other people get murdered.

[mainiac]

I dunno what gave me that impression of Salon

Salon enjoys being contrarian.  Rather like a large number of internet posters.  Doesn't make them pedophiles although it doesn't make me a fan.

[Shadowlord]

You may want to look at the suicide rates too. The suicide by firearm rate is double the homicide by firearm rate in the USA.

[Reelya]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/

^ On the race issue vs firearms, there are 5 white gun suicides for each gun homicide, and it's the reverse for blacks: 5 gun homicides for each suicide. Blacks are also much more strongly supportive of tougher gun control (>75% support as compared to <50% support among white Americans), and that makes sense since African Americans would disproportionately benefit from such a law, with many less homicides and probably many less shootings by the police too (less guns means less excuse for the police to shoot first). Pulling a gun on the police is a sure-fire death sentence, so carrying a gun isn't going to help you there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And I'd say categorically if there were many fewer guns in the black community they'd be safer from the cops as well as safer from each other. Shooting it out with the cops is a guaranteed death sentence anyway, and if there were less guns the police would be much less able to use the "I thought he had a gun" excuse.

*chortle*
Come the fuck on, if the cops are cool with shooting handcuffed black teens in their patrol cars they won't be suddenly swayed to peace by a gun control law. That's like the height of liberal masturbatory political fantasy. There is nothing about that which does anything to being able to say you thought they had a gun.

I'm not cool with everything that they did, but one of the positive accomplishments of the Black Panthers was asserting their gun rights en mass to counter police brutality. And I don't mean attacking people, just being around with them was very effective.

[Loud Whispers]

"In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender"
Rare event?
The survey also notes:
"In 2007-11, about 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police, compared to 46% of nonfirearm violence (table 10). Among the nonfatal firearm victimizations that went unreported in 2007-11, the most common reasons victims gave for not reporting the crime was fear of reprisal (31%) and that the police could not or would not do anything to help (27%)."
Yah that's hundreds of thousands of people quite chuffed they didn't get fucked up by Salon pedos or cheeki offenders

Well you can add the plusses and minuses, but it all leads to the overall homicide statistics doesn't it? Yeah, more people defend themselves with a gun in the USA than other countries. But is that actually working to prevent people getting killed? Apparently not, since the USA's homicide rate is 5 times that of the UK. Sure, maybe the occasional person in the UK could have prevented their own death if guns were legal, but opening that can of worms would see you with a 5x murder rate on the overall.

Well no, if Switzerland's anything to go by. Heck, the USA had an always decreasing homicide rate up until now. Police says this is after police withdrew from the USA in the Ferguson effect, fearing charges, leading to criminals feeling quite safe leading to more drugs and more organized crime and so more violence. Beeb suggests a blip is just a blip and you need more data to call it a trend. Amusingly there's this there too:
The New York City Police Department's historical main tactic for stopping people has significantly decreased after the way it was exercised was deemed unconstitutional.
"Inevitably, there was a trade off," said Mr Blumstein. "[Stop and Frisk] was certainly a deterrent effect to carrying a gun in the street."
When people are trying to kill each other they will find weapons, and disarming citizens when hundreds of thousands of them defend themselves and win in order to perhaps disarm people who are going out of their way to kill someone seems a bit iffy. You just end up with London where gangs rule their estates, people are scared to defend themselves outside their homes from worry of being prosecuted by their attacker and two weeks ago we had our first marksmen patrols and armed response vehicles to tackle a recent surge in gun crime. Oh and of course, cheeky rape gangs and gang rapists.
End of the day though, there's no doubt the UK has a lower homicide rate. Seems safer at least. Having 1 camera for every 10 people and 1 policeman for every 500 people (after cuts to the force) helps. A fifth of the world's CCTV cameras are positioned in the UK. Ha, you want to be like us? Liberties are worth dying for for a reason, as when you sacrifice too many living stops being worth it.

And crunching the numbers using the Bradycampaign (some antigun campaign, so I know the estimates will be as large as they can get them) on a yearly average in the USA in regards to usage of guns:
11,583 people are murdered.
584 people are killed accidentally.
252 die but intent is not known.   
For a total of 12,419 people a year.

Dividing the criminal survey's number for reported cases of self-defence with a firearm that's 78,566 uses of self defence vs 12,419 deaths by homicide/accident/unknown intent with a firearm. Adding up the numbers disarming the 78,566 in an attempt to cut down the 12,419 just doesn't make sense.

Salon enjoys being contrarian.  Rather like a large number of internet posters.  Doesn't make them pedophiles although it doesn't make me a fan.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I would not call hiring and publishing pedophiles advocating pedophilia contrarian, irregardless of whether they're "non-contactual" with children
Being an edgy contrarian is like picking a side or opposing green vs fossil fuel energy based off of identity politics versus pragmatic policy, or even now supporting gun rights vs run control based off identity politics versus pragmatic policy. Supporting pedophilia because conservatives hate pedophiles is like supporting murder because conservatives hate murderers. You've really gone off the deep end by then

You may want to look at the suicide rates too. The suicide by firearm rate is double the homicide by firearm rate in the USA.

Give your people reasons to live, so they don't look for means to die.

[Sheb]

What's so contrarian about it? As long as the pedophile doesn't actually act on its urges, he/she cannot really helps being attracted to children.

[Flying Dice]

That, pretty much. Yeah, the act is about as morally reprehensible as can be, but it's not good to get in the habit of allowing prosecution or persecution for thought-crime just because someone has particularly repulsive urges. As a society we generally don't condone legal action or shunning for the guy who fantasizes about killing his boss, the woman who secretly wants to swerve into bike lanes, the racist that has enough self control to bite their tongue and act fairly, &c. for every other horrible thing any human being has wanted to do or thought about doing but ultimately not done. I'll defend people who want to do horrible things but don't because allowing them to continue thinking about doing wrong is better than the thought police.

Not that I'm speaking specifically in regard to whoever that asshole is, because I avoid Salon on general principle, so maybe what you're saying about this situation is true.

[Reelya]

Loud Whispers, if you want to use Switzerland as an example to back up the USA's gun laws you're barking up the wrong tree. First, while there are many militia rifles, the militia are not permitted to keep ammo at home, so the militia rifles do not serve as any sort of home-defense deterrent.

Second, after you factor out the militia weapons which are stored without ammo, the remaining private gun ownership is lower than Sweden, Germany, France or Austria. And while you can buy private guns in Switzerland, the amount of red tape you have to go through to buy a gun, or even buy bullets, is extreme.

To get bullets in Switzerland you have to show your ID, proof of citizenship, a valid weapon permit < 2 years old for the weapon that the ammo is for, you also have to have a police-issued criminal history check that's no older than three months. So you're already dealing with multiple government agencies, and after buying the bullets you have to register the purchase with the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where your gun permit is also registered. So to get ammo you basically had to flag to the government and the police what you were up to, and give a valid reason for use.

Also, to carry a gun in public is illegal without a permit, and they are only normally given out if your job requires you to carry a gun, e.g. you have the gun for your security job.

So, Switzerland is a case-study in how strict gun control regulation is actually effective at preventing gun crime. It reminds me of the Chris Rock routine about how gun control doesn't work and we need "bullet control". Going by Switzerland's example, bullet control is indeed effective.

[darkrider2]

Thank you Reelya.

[TheBiggerFish]

Thank you Reelya.

[Strife26]

If you're promoting gun legalization in the UK then don't hide behind "protecting the weak" because all the statistics suggest that that is bullshit. The weak are not safer in the USA because of guns. Just say you want to be able to defend yourself with a gun, and don't really care how many other people get murdered.

This is where the real disconnect between gun control advocates and gun rights people (and actually the same one between most censors and free speech types) is. Quite frankly, it's a damn terrifying one too.


The individual right is the important thing, not the vague societal cost (because the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish that, unless someone can get together enough support to ratify an ammendment, the value of freedom is greater). My individual right to keep and bear arms (for absolutely any reason that isn't illegal, be it self defense, tactical Barbies, preparing for the end of the world, investment, or shits-and-giggles) is more important than the collective illusion of safety. Similarly, my right to freedom of speech without government sensorship is more important than the risk of people being harassed or hurt or ripped-off by legal speech.

Other countries do things differently, that's their right. But thank God for the Constitution, because I'll take the American system over a nanny state one hundred percent of the time.

[Loud Whispers]

Loud Whispers, if you want to use Switzerland as an example to back up the USA's gun laws you're barking up the wrong tree.

Well no, if Switzerland's anything to go by. Heck, the USA had an always decreasing homicide rate up until now. Police says this is after police withdrew from the USA in the Ferguson effect, fearing charges, leading to criminals feeling quite safe leading to more drugs and more organized crime and so more violence. Beeb suggests a blip is just a blip and you need more data to call it a trend. Amusingly there's this there too:
The New York City Police Department's historical main tactic for stopping people has significantly decreased after the way it was exercised was deemed unconstitutional.
"Inevitably, there was a trade off," said Mr Blumstein. "[Stop and Frisk] was certainly a deterrent effect to carrying a gun in the street."
When people are trying to kill each other they will find weapons, and disarming citizens when hundreds of thousands of them defend themselves and win in order to perhaps disarm people who are going out of their way to kill someone seems a bit iffy. You just end up with London where gangs rule their estates, people are scared to defend themselves outside their homes from worry of being prosecuted by their attacker and two weeks ago we had our first marksmen patrols and armed response vehicles to tackle a recent surge in gun crime. Oh and of course, cheeky rape gangs and gang rapists.
End of the day though, there's no doubt the UK has a lower homicide rate. Seems safer at least. Having 1 camera for every 10 people and 1 policeman for every 500 people (after cuts to the force) helps. A fifth of the world's CCTV cameras are positioned in the UK. Ha, you want to be like us? Liberties are worth dying for for a reason, as when you sacrifice too many living stops being worth it.

And crunching the numbers using the Bradycampaign (some antigun campaign, so I know the estimates will be as large as they can get them) on a yearly average in the USA in regards to usage of guns:
11,583 people are murdered.
584 people are killed accidentally.
252 die but intent is not known.   
For a total of 12,419 people a year.

Dividing the criminal survey's number for reported cases of self-defence with a firearm that's 78,566 uses of self defence vs 12,419 deaths by homicide/accident/unknown intent with a firearm. Adding up the numbers disarming the 78,566 in an attempt to cut down the 12,419 just doesn't make sense.

Red = talking about Switzerland
White = talking about USA
Blue = talking about UK

You stop barking UK I'll stop barking Francs and we can both keep barking Yanks
I also dunno why you ignored the White and Blue since that's literally my entire argument

First, while there are many militia rifles, the militia are not permitted to keep ammo at home, so the militia rifles do not serve as any sort of home-defense deterrent.

Not allowed to keep army-issued ammunition, privately purchased ammunition bought for privately owned guns that are compatible with army-issued rifles is completely fine.

Second, after you factor out the militia weapons which are stored without ammo, the remaining private gun ownership is lower than Sweden, Germany, France or Austria. And while you can buy private guns in Switzerland, the amount of red tape you have to go through to buy a gun, or even buy bullets, is extreme.

No citations makes things harder for me to find Reelya
Anyways I found this and the Swiss gov are trying to register all guns, they have registered over 1.255million guns and estimate there's between that and 4.5million guns. Of all registered ones 455,000 are army issued. Estimates for older unregistered guns that were issued by the army (army issued guns can become privately owned and older ones weren't registered is also over 1.2 million. Also from the article: The reregister is controversial. SP, Greens and FDP they accept, SVP, CVP and the gun lobby reject it. The President of the Society for a liberal gun laws Pro Tell, Willy pounds (74), described the reregister as a "labor of Sisyphus, which contributes nothing to the prevention of firearm abuse".
Lol
Also Sweden, France, Germany and Austria have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with rates of gun ownership (alongside burglar alarms, pepper spray and guard dogs) having spiked in Sweden, France, Germany and Austria - where the immigrant crisis has struck (most amusingly at Traiskirchen in Austria, 1 in 2 criminals are immigrants and there gun sales have soared). Unsurprisingly more violent crime results in citizens who more want to defend themselves from it.

To get bullets in Switzerland you have to show your ID, proof of citizenship, a valid weapon permit < 2 years old for the weapon that the ammo is for, you also have to have a police-issued criminal history check that's no older than three months. So you're already dealing with multiple government agencies, and after buying the bullets you have to register the purchase with the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where your gun permit is also registered. So to get ammo you basically had to flag to the government and the police what you were up to, and give a valid reason for use.

Yeah this bit you just made up, no more than you'd have to explain why you're buying alcohol when you show ID, and prior to 1999 crime rates were still low and they had no federal gun control laws - the federal gun control laws being a recent addition imposed on them by EU pressure after accusations that their guns were ending up in the hands of Balkan fighters and other terrorists (hence why people from Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania cannot purchase bullets) made even worse by the EU Weapon's Directive being incorporated into Swiss gun law in 2008. Rifles and semiautomatic long arms that are customarily used by recreational hunters are exempt from the licensing requirement, the license is issued by the canton of residence of the applicant but is valid throughout Switzerland (so no jumping through "several government agencies," all agencies are local bar passport issuing which is Federal (and everyone in Europe owns passports, very unusual not to) and the acquisition license is required only if a weapon is acquired from a dealer.  No license is required for transactions between private individuals.  These are permitted as long as the seller verifies the identity and age of the buyer by checking an official identification document and as long as he has no reason to believe that the buyer has been or should be disqualified from gun ownership.  The buyer may ascertain these circumstances by requesting information from the cantonal authorities, but only if the buyer consents in writing.

Also, to carry a gun in public is illegal without a permit, and they are only normally given out if your job requires you to carry a gun, e.g. you have the gun for your security job.

A carrying license is granted it the individual applicant demonstrates a need for the weapon to protect himself, others, or property against existing dangers; and has passed an exam to test his required theoretical knowledge and practical skill. No carrying license is required for the transporting of an unloaded weapon for legitimate purposes, such as travel to and from the shooting range or hunting environment, as long as the ammunition is kept separate from the weapon.

So, Switzerland is a case-study in how strict gun control regulation is actually effective at preventing gun crime. It reminds me of the Chris Rock routine about how gun control doesn't work and we need "bullet control". Going by Switzerland's example, bullet control is indeed effective.

No, Switzerland is a case-study of how the EU imposes unnecessary regulation on European states and then claims credit for a working system still working after they insert their dongs into national law

What's so contrarian about it? As long as the pedophile doesn't actually act on its urges, he/she cannot really helps being attracted to children.

Oh for fucks sakes they said the slippery slope wasn't real

[mainiac]

Oh for fucks sakes they said the slippery slope wasn't real

I see, so we start judging this group of people by their actions and we might have to judge other groups of people by their actions?

[Loud Whispers]

Oh for fucks sakes they said the slippery slope wasn't real

I see, so we start judging this group of people by their actions and we might have to judge other groups of people by their actions?

What does this have to do with making pedophilia acceptable
THE MORAL DISSONANCE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
_{Brought to you by Salon^tm}