Booth kills baited bear

[dbr]

homicide levels [in the UK] are just a third of what they are in the USA

Again with the stats eh?

Okay you asked for it, a little more perspective....

(right-click on the graphs and open them in a new window)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... media.html

*snip*

Of the 206 countries in the world, USA is #103.

Middle of the pack y'might say.

Hey Doc, you make a truly convincing argument: the United States of America truly is not among the worst of the third world countries on the planet.

Some other interesting stats from that article:

In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Interesting, no?

It is. Honestly this is why I think nothing is going to be done about gun control in the US.. sure there is the odd blip like Sandy Hook or Columbine but mostly it is just second class citizens killing each other and it's not enough to risk alienating all the gun-loving, god-fearing Americans trying to do anything about it.

[RoyalDude]

Hey Doc, you make a truly convincing argument: the United States of America truly is not among the worst of the third world countries on the planet.

lol

Anyhow, found another great heart warming gun acquiring murder weapon story in the Province this morning, headline reads something like 'Internet Company HELPS B.C. man buy murder weapon to kill ex-girlfriend in Chicago'. As Shell Bussy says "IT'S JUST THAT EASY FOLKS'! Story - http://www.theprovince.com/news/Armslis ... story.html

[ukcanuck]

Are you fucking kidding me? I don't know if anyone (except maybe RoyalDude, I can't manage more than a quick scan of his posts anymore) said anything even close to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

So your straw man "they're going to take our precious freedoms!" bullshit doesn't cut the mustard.

Actually it was Chez boyardee I was responding to that started this conversation, but I do realize that (and would expect) a more reasoned response from the regulars on here,
However, this forum isn't the only place people are talking and there are a lot of people I've heard anyway who are talking like the sky is falling and all guns need to go...

Instinctively I hate knee jerk solutions and I would point to Hitler's suspension of Germany's constitution in 1933 as a prime example of such.

Granted, Sandy hook as a tragedy is way more serious than the Reichstag fire, but as rabble rousing goes, I'd just rather not go headlong into crazy over reaction.

Hey this is some super sound reasoning. Why not just stop having laws, since it doesn't seem to stop criminals from breaking them?

That's a slight exaggeration don't you think? How do you go from the sound logic that restricting legal weapons to prevent illegal ones being used in crimes won't work to well let's have no laws then?

Let's just say it's similar to going from "meaningful gun control helps reduce gun deaths" to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

Except I didn't seriously do that, nor did I proceed to form an argument against that position.. since you know, nobody actually believes it.

It seems we are arguing against ourselves here for no reason...
How about we say that somewhere between, "I shall have any gun I want, whenever or wherever I want, to "there is no good reason whatsoever to own a gun so lets ban them" lies the reasoned position?

What exactly is wrong with that?

Oh I don't know, what's wrong with stripping rights guaranteed in the constitution? Perhaps freedom of speech will be next?

Pastor Martin frickin Niemoller, ladies and gentlemen.

its not such a ridiculous position to take, have you been paying attention since 9/11? Home land security for starters...

Aside: I was absolutely stunned to find out you now need to produce your drivers license to be scanned to enter a night club in BC...doesn't that magnetic strip contain personal information...ahem, Right to privacy anyone?

Uhh gee, I thought only career criminals like Al Capone break laws.

Ok if I concede that stricter gun control might have impeded Lanza enough to either delay his rampage or change it enough to result in a different outcome,
Would you admit that if there are less guns in the hands of the " good guys" (the other result of gun control) there will be less to stop the bad guys?

Btw I hope you aren't gonna say that's what the police are for ...

I'm not going to get any further into this with you than this: they studied deaths by cirrhosis of the liver and other indicators of alcohol consumption.

That's interesting, I have to admit I didn't think of that, however, wouldn't it make sense that if you take booze away from alcoholics they will die sooner and in bigger numbers from drinking bathtub gin, rubbing alcohol, or some other rot gut? Thereby skewing numbers? (off topic I know but interesting nonetheless)

Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to this.

Actually I kind of was, but only to point out the non sequitur. I can't see how a reliable inference could be drawn just by looking at numbers... You know, "lies, damn lies, and all that...

London Met story....

The point of that story was that if the UK is a safer society because it prohibits guns, why does its police force operate like an elite special forces, theoretically the criminals here only have knives?

Ya, some people are always going to have guns. There goes my plan of establishing a completely gun-free society.

Shame, would be a wonderful world...

A "bad guy" - which I guess by your reasoning means that nobody who ever commits a crime (you know, nobody who is "a bad guy") ever purchased the weapon they use to do so at Guns R Us. Too bad the facts don't back you up on that absolutely ludicrous claim.

Okay your point that there is a death toll related to the existence of guns in society is point taken, but that in of itself is not enough reason to control them beyond the intentions of existing laws.
Lets just enforce what's on the books already...
(For the life of me I can't figure out why that's such a clusterfuck by the way, its not like the technology doesn't exist..)

Uh huh. How do you hold someone who kills a bunch of people and them himself accountable, again?

How hard is it to attach a serial number to the rightful purchaser and owner and hold that guy responsible for that weapon a long as he owns it?
Would it be that difficult to hold the guy who owns the gun at least partially responsible for any deaths that occur from the use of that gun...Even if he didn't pull the trigger himself?

The way I see it, like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is a noble ideal, however if someone else loses their rights in the process- obviously that's a major league fail.

mechanisms need to be in place to prevent that, but the sticky part is how to di that without "infringement"

One way is to track the guns from manufacture to destruction, a monumental task in the past, but with data collection technology in existence now, not so impossible. ..

But anyways this is all pointless and right now I am only arguing with your posts because it's fun to be so incredibly, one-sidedly correct - since you pretty much admitted earlier you are arguing against a complete straw man and actually hold similar views to mine

You're welcome, however, I'm not sure you agree with the right to bear arms as sacrosanct.

(some weapons should be restricted, some people should not be able to own guns, guns should be stored in a safe and responsible manner, people who break these and other laws should be held accountable for their actions).

That's a reasonable position alright, but the trouble I see with it is the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment. How does limiting my ability to bear certain arms jibe with that I'm not sure...throw in state level constitutions and its a hodgepodge...

My last question would be though, how can you be in favour of free speech and in favour of people scratching, clawing and kicking to keep every bit of every aspect of their "rights" and still be in favour of legislation against hate speech?

I don't really know how to answer that other than to say I recognize my rights can't infringe your rights...

If my words or my gun hurts you then I'm in the wrong..

I will say however one huge reason I argue against gun control as a response to Sandy Hook is that I don't want people to go "Ok ban automatic weapons and problem solved" that sucks because whatever is going on is systemic and its way deeper than gun control.

letting what's going with these kids destroying themselves be about gun control is crime in of itself.

[HockeyGeek]

Man, there is a boatload of stupid on both sides of the fence in this discussion. The problem with using statistics in an argument is that people don't see how many variables go into each statistic. It is so easy to say gun ownership rates have a direct correlation to homicide rates. It's also easy to blame a certain ethnicity for bloated homicide rates as was done earlier in this thread, however things aren't nearly as simple as that. As I mentioned earlier, there are many variables that oftentimes get overlooked when people start quoting statistics. The big ones are population density, education level, socioeconomic standing, and yes, how easy it is to acquire firearms. Plainly speaking, you pack a bunch of poor uneducated people into a small place and give them a bunch of guns and surprise surprise there are a lot of murders. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

As for the whole debate over high powered semi-automatic weapons and mass murders, some people seems to think if those weapons are removed from the equation mass murders will go away. On the other side of the argument some people think identifying people more at risk to commit these mass murders before they happen is the key. No and no. Everyone has their breaking point. For some it's earlier than others. When some people break they want to hurt as many people as possible. Identifying these people before they commit these mass murders would only be possible in an Orwellian world where everything we do is monitored, recorded and analyzed. The resources required to do this on a country-wide scale simply don't exist. So these kinds of mass murders will continue to happen. The only thing we can do is try to limit their effectiveness. If it becomes harder for someone to acquire weapons that make it easier to kill at a faster rate then we give potential victims more of a fighting chance to get away or stop their assailant. Common sense people, use it.

[dbr]

Are you fucking kidding me? I don't know if anyone (except maybe RoyalDude, I can't manage more than a quick scan of his posts anymore) said anything even close to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

So your straw man "they're going to take our precious freedoms!" bullshit doesn't cut the mustard.

Actually it was Chez boyardee I was responding to that started this conversation, but I do realize that (and would expect) a more reasoned response from the regulars on here,
However, this forum isn't the only place people are talking and there are a lot of people I've heard anyway who are talking like the sky is falling and all guns need to go...

Instinctively I hate knee jerk solutions and I would point to Hitler's suspension of Germany's constitution in 1933 as a prime example of such.

Granted, Sandy hook as a tragedy is way more serious than the Reichstag fire, but as rabble rousing goes, I'd just rather not go headlong into crazy over reaction.

Another example of "headlong into crazy" or "knee jerk" might be bringing up the Nazis in a discussion about gun control.

Anyway yeah I should have known that kind of posting was probably the end result of someone taking RD far too seriously, I'm sure you know old line (Mark Twain I think?) about arguing with idiots.

Let's just say it's similar to going from "meaningful gun control helps reduce gun deaths" to "guns are bad, lets ban them."

Except I didn't seriously do that, nor did I proceed to form an argument against that position.. since you know, nobody actually believes it.

It seems we are arguing against ourselves here for no reason...

How about we say that somewhere between, "I shall have any gun I want, whenever or wherever I want, to "there is no good reason whatsoever to own a gun so lets ban them" lies the reasoned position?

Yeah. That position is what I have occupied, and what you've occupied as well. Except you departed from there to make a bunch of goofy statements about how we might as well giftwrap our free speech rights.

Pastor Martin frickin Niemoller, ladies and gentlemen.

its not such a ridiculous position to take, have you been paying attention since 9/11? Home land security for starters...

Aside: I was absolutely stunned to find out you now need to produce your drivers license to be scanned to enter a night club in BC...doesn't that magnetic strip contain personal information...ahem, Right to privacy anyone?

Yeah our rights and freedoms are being trampled left right and center. I'm not saying I'm in favour of that in principle, in case you hadn't gathered that yet.

I'm saying that someone's right to buy an assault rifle and leave it standing in the corner behind their front door with the safety off isn't as important as say, someone's else's right to live.

Whether the US government recognizes that and implements significant and standardized gun control along with meaningful encforcement of it or not, other encroachments on the rights of citizens of that country will continue to happen and it will be up to those citizens to stand up against it.

Uhh gee, I thought only career criminals like Al Capone break laws.

Ok if I concede that stricter gun control might have impeded Lanza enough to either delay his rampage or change it enough to result in a different outcome,
Would you admit that if there are less guns in the hands of the " good guys" (the other result of gun control) there will be less to stop the bad guys?

Btw I hope you aren't gonna say that's what the police are for ...

There's not much point in speculating about what exactly might have been different in the Sandy Hook shooting.. anyway as Topper said Connecticut has meaningful gun control on the books already.

What is worth considering as that stricter gun control across the US might stop thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.

To me a gun in the hands of a "good guy" (and I used "bad guy" in quotes because I don't want someone thinking I would seriously use such a ridiculous blanket statement, switching over the "good guys" isn't a big improvement on that) being some kind of saving grace is a myth.

Show me a case of an honest citizing whipping out their firearm to stop someone from putting the lives of innocent people in jeopardy and I'll show you a handful of firefights (and dead "innocent bystanders".. remember them?).

I'm not going to get any further into this with you than this: they studied deaths by cirrhosis of the liver and other indicators of alcohol consumption.

That's interesting, I have to admit I didn't think of that, however, wouldn't it make sense that if you take booze away from alcoholics they will die sooner and in bigger numbers from drinking bathtub gin, rubbing alcohol, or some other rot gut? Thereby skewing numbers? (off topic I know but interesting nonetheless)

Yeah maybe, I don't know. My point is simply that you can't argue "see people kept drinking during the Prohibition so there's no point in having gun control."

Are you kidding me? I don't even know how to respond to this.

Actually I kind of was, but only to point out the non sequitur. I can't see how a reliable inference could be drawn just by looking at numbers... You know, "lies, damn lies, and all that...

Well I am not saying "introduce X law and you will see a Y decrease in fatalities," I am just saying that with thousands and thousands of people dying every year in a nation with millions and millions of guns, cutting down on access to firearms would probably cut down the number of related deaths. I wouldn't even attempt to guess how many.

Uh huh. How do you hold someone who kills a bunch of people and them himself accountable, again?

How hard is it to attach a serial number to the rightful purchaser and owner and hold that guy responsible for that weapon a long as he owns it?
Would it be that difficult to hold the guy who owns the gun at least partially responsible for any deaths that occur from the use of that gun...Even if he didn't pull the trigger himself?

Well in the case of Nancy Lanza, I don't think she's too worried about being held accountable for the deaths of 26 others. Certainly no more than Adam Lanza is, anyway.

But.. if people who purchased firearms knew that they would be held responsible for the future use of those firearms I would imagine they'd have far more incentive to keep them safely.

(That being said, can you imagine how loud the gun lobby would be howling about the first accessory-to-murder charge placed on an NRA member who had their car stolen or their house broken into? I would bet a law like that would be thrown out of court before the ink was dry on the page..)

But anyways this is all pointless and right now I am only arguing with your posts because it's fun to be so incredibly, one-sidedly correct - since you pretty much admitted earlier you are arguing against a complete straw man and actually hold similar views to mine

You're welcome, however, I'm not sure you agree with the right to bear arms as sacrosanct.

Well whatever. I'm no more committed to the principle that people have a sacred right to own firearms than I am to the notion that there is no need for firearms beyond law enforcement, war and hunting.

I don't see any reason to "ban" guns just like I don't see any reason to let everyone/anyone own military grade weaponry willy nilly.

(some weapons should be restricted, some people should not be able to own guns, guns should be stored in a safe and responsible manner, people who break these and other laws should be held accountable for their actions).

That's a reasonable position alright, but the trouble I see with it is the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment. How does limiting my ability to bear certain arms jibe with that I'm not sure...throw in state level constitutions and its a hodgepodge...

Yeah it would be a god damned quagmire trying to achieve meaningful change to this kind of policy on a national level in that country.

Thankfully for current politicians those who have joined the group pushing for it in the last month have short memories.. the rest can go on being ignored just like they were over the last couple decades.

My last question would be though, how can you be in favour of free speech and in favour of people scratching, clawing and kicking to keep every bit of every aspect of their "rights" and still be in favour of legislation against hate speech?

I don't really know how to answer that other than to say I recognize my rights can't infringe your rights...

If my words or my gun hurts you then I'm in the wrong..

I will say however one huge reason I argue against gun control as a response to Sandy Hook is that I don't want people to go "Ok ban automatic weapons and problem solved" that sucks because whatever is going on is systemic and its way deeper than gun control.

letting what's going with these kids destroying themselves be about gun control is crime in of itself.

Well it's clearly not just about gun control.

It's also about mental health, but you'd have an easier time collecting and destroying every firearm in the USA than you would ensuring that people experiencing mental health crises got both the acute and the long term care and support they needed to ideally recover, or even just stop their lives from sliding down the tubes.

It's about half a dozen other things as well but they are even more nebulous and even harder to fix. Fixing the one most obvious problem here and ignoring the others isn't a good thing, but it's one step better than doing nothing (which is a real possibility here, since the NRA's cracker jack plan isn't going to be implemented either).

[Per]

It's both about not adressing mental health problems and access to fire arms. What would happen if you just address access to guns? You'd probably see more articles like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world ... .html?_r=0

Please note the difference in the number of casualties, compared to the Newtown massacre.

[Per]

As mentioned by many others, I don't think that thre are many of us that would favour a total ban on guns. It's just that the US needs to put in place at least some basic gun control.

Sweden actually ranks tenth in the world when it comes to guns per capita; we have more guns than eg Canada (31.6/100 people, compared to Canada's 30.8).

Hunting is a very popular pastime, it's estimated that some 570,000 Swedes hunt, and every year some 90,000 moose (more than the rest of the world combined) and 200,000 roe deer are shot. Bear hunting is restricted, only about 50 or so per year are licensed to be shot, but there is substantial hunting of fowl, hares and rabbits.

But in order to own/buy guns in Sweden you need a license, much like a drivers license. You get educated on gun safety and have to pass both practical and theoretical tests, plus a background test against criminal and mental health records. Once you have your license you are free to buy and own guns.

All sales of guns and ammunition are registered and records are kept. You can only buy ammunition to guns you have legally acquired. Automatic guns are illegal, and you need special permits for semi-automatic guns. Armour-piercing, incendiary and expanding ammunition is illegal.

Furthermore, guns must be kept in a safe manner, with a vital part of the gun (eg bolt or tailpiece) removed and kept in a safe when not being used. Thus to steal a gun, the thieves have to break into not only the locked gun rack, but also a separate safety box. Makes it trickier for them, but of course not impossible, if they have plenty of time. Anyway, this means that having a functioning gun lying around in the house is a criminal offense. You only assemble the vital part when you're about to use it, for eg hunting or target shooting.

Despite all this, it's estimated that there are roughly as many illegal as legal guns. A huge problem being that many other countries (eg the USA) have too lax gun laws, and criminals then transport guns across borders.

But on the bright side we have very few gun related deaths, Typically less than twenty per year.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

[Strangelove]

Despite all this, it's estimated that there are roughly as many illegal as legal guns.

Exactly, the bad guys will always get aholda guns no matter what.

But on the bright side we have very few gun related deaths, Typically less than twenty per year.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

Ummm "20 per year" HOMICIDE-by-gun deaths

+ 5 "unintentional" gun deaths

+ 120 suicide-by gun deaths

= more like 145 "gun related deaths".

According to your site.... and in a nation of only 9.5mil!

Per, why are your fellow Swedes committing suicide at such a ridiculous rate??

(120 by gun and about 1300 per year altogether!)

(more that twice the rate per capita of say UK!!)

Does it have anything to do with the fact that almost all of you are heathens?

Could it be partly due to the fact your divorce rate is amongst the highest in the world?

I could be wrong but a quick glance at the stats indicates this is more of a problem among the youth.

If so, perhaps this has something to do with the way houses are designed over there?

I read somewhere the bedrooms tend to face each other... or all face toward the living room

... or some shit.

See in Christendom we understand it's NOT a good idea to afford the children a good view of parents making out.

(and going by your divorce rate it seems their parents are often making out with the parents of their friends)

geesh, a good christian like David Booth kills a bear and folks are up in arms

... meanwhile millions of Godless adulterous Swedes are driving their kids to suicide and no one says nary a word...

WOT A WORLD!!!


.

[Fred]

a good christian like David Booth kills a bear and folks are up in arms

Just for you Doc the 10 Commandments plus the additional commandment added in at the end !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpL2m6XJhQw

[Strangelove]

Just for you Doc the 10 Commandments plus the additional commandment added in at the end !!!

I'm not a Jew, I'm a Christian YOU DUMFUCK!!

[Fred]

So when did the Christians stop following the 10 commandments DUMBFUCK

[Strangelove]

Well we do and we don't .... DUMFUCK!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... d_covenant

[Per]

Well we do and we don't .... DUMFUCK!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... d_covenant

Leading to the classic question; what is worse in the eyes of thy Lord, having gay sex or eating prawn?
Or is it a tie?

[Fred]

Christian virtues certainly seemed to have changed since my days. Doubt the 10 commandments, riding on dinosaurs,

Here's one you might enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zWbL8Uqfw

[Per]

But on the bright side we have very few gun related deaths, Typically less than twenty per year.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

Ummm "20 per year" HOMICIDE-by-gun deaths
+ 5 "unintentional" gun deaths
+ 120 suicide-by gun deaths
= more like 145 "gun related deaths".

Oops! Meant of course gun related homicides.

Per, why are your fellow Swedes committing suicide at such a ridiculous rate??

We're actually at the OECD average. Sure, slightly higher than the US and Canada, but not significantly.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... the-world/

Does it have anything to do with the fact that almost all of you are heathens?

Are we?

A survey in 2009 showed the following grouping among Swedes:
49% not religious
35% christian
2% buddhist
1% islam
5% other religion
8% prefer not to say

Guess it depends on your definition of heathen.

Most commonly it's a synonym to pagan, and then no.
Sometimes, however, it's expanded to include "anyone who does not acknowledge the god of the bible", and in that case - ok, quite a few of us are, but hardly "almost all"; I mean, there's a known 36% following the Abrahamian god, and I assume a good chunk out of the 5% other religion and 8% prefer-not-to-say may fail to qualify as heathens as well.

Still, as an atheist I would think our opposition to suicide would be stronger, as we believe this is all we get. Christians, muslims, hindus et al believe there's more to come, so it ought to be less of a treshold to them, really.

http://www.fgi-tbff.org/sites/default/f ... g_pack.pdf

Could it be partly due to the fact your divorce rate is amongst the highest in the world?

surely, eh? Being stuck in a bad marriage must be so much better than ending it, eh?
I'd assume our divorce rate is high because we have no fault divorce. Any one wants out, it's over. No need for the other person to sign, no guilty party, no reasons why, no alimony. Just split up the belongings 50-50 (unless there's a prenup) move out and start over. Divorce seems so much more complicated on American TV shows. But I guess all those lawyers they have need to make a living...

And still our divorce rate is similar to that in the USA. Go figure.

I could be wrong but a quick glance at the stats indicates this is more of a problem among the youth.

If so, perhaps this has something to do with the way houses are designed over there?

I read somewhere the bedrooms tend to face each other... or all face toward the living room

... or some shit.

Well, you shouldn't believe all that drivel you pick up from Fox News and the Westboro baptists.
It's hardly ever reality-based.