|
On February 17 2013 04:32 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:28 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
[quote]
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop. I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California. People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably. Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay. you should take your advice as well.
Oh, but you see, I am not at all sick. I am curious, however, as to how you can even continue posting after you've been shown to base your understanding of police/citizen dynamics on movies and fantastic imaginings of organized local uprisings, when in reality, an armed populace driven to violence has shown itself far more liable to destroy itself than offer up any sort of meaningful resistance towards the police. So go on, more one liners about how oh so smart you are please.
|
On February 17 2013 04:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:32 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:28 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:
[quote]
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop. I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California. People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably. Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay. you should take your advice as well. Oh, but you see, I am not at all sick. I am curious, however, as to how you can even continue posting after you've been shown to base your understanding of police/citizen dynamics on movies and fantastic imaginings of organized local uprisings, when in reality, an armed populace driven to violence has shown itself far more liable to destroy itself than the offer up any sort of meaningful resistance towards the police.
That was posted by the other user. He was trying to say that I based y comment on a movie. Sorry but I dont have time to waste with people that have no arguments.
Bye! I wont answer any more of your posts.
|
On February 17 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:16 Bengui wrote:
Police state. The guy is a murderer, and he will keep his authority over other people. Disgusting. Beats Canada - where children are force fed moose poop. Link
you would rather die then eat shit?
|
On February 17 2013 04:35 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:34 NoobSkills wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? I'm still curious which amendment in the Bill of Rights says you don't have to do what a cop tells you to do. Read it and comprehend it what it is about. Even better educate yourself more.
You can't list the number of the amendment? Why not? Probably because there isn't one.
|
On February 17 2013 04:36 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:35 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:32 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:28 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:26 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:22 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves. So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result. What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together? You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop. I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California. People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably. Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay. you should take your advice as well. Oh, but you see, I am not at all sick. I am curious, however, as to how you can even continue posting after you've been shown to base your understanding of police/citizen dynamics on movies and fantastic imaginings of organized local uprisings, when in reality, an armed populace driven to violence has shown itself far more liable to destroy itself than the offer up any sort of meaningful resistance towards the police. That was posted by the other user. He was trying to say that I based y comment on a movie. Sorry but I dont have time to waste with people that have no arguments. Bye! I wont answer any more of your posts.
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
|
On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that their reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
|
On February 17 2013 04:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Edit: I even said sorry because i dont like to name call either.
|
On February 17 2013 04:41 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea. I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
|
On February 17 2013 04:37 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 04:16 Bengui wrote:
Police state. The guy is a murderer, and he will keep his authority over other people. Disgusting. Beats Canada - where children are force fed moose poop. Link you would rather die then eat shit?
I don't take meth, walk around with a loaded gun and threaten cops so I'm not too worried about the police shooting me.
I was once a student on field trips though, so eating moose poop is more frightening as it hits close to home.
|
On February 17 2013 04:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:41 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea. I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either. Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user?
|
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote:
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens...
|
Runs away -> gets shot in back for self defence?
|
On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement? Maybe read when I said that responsible trained civilians should have it? oh right you cannot read.
I'm fine with that so long as it's reasonable. But some level of gun control is necessary. The guy who got shot in the OP shouldn't have had one.
|
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote:
Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
My neighbor is a cop. We hang a lot and I know he carrys a concealed gun even when he is not on duty on his pouch. Never I saw or heard about him shooting someone. In Portugal the most big cop news you get about police abuse is them punching someone that was actually throwing rocks (or next to someone who was) in a manifestation.
|
On February 17 2013 00:48 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote:
Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force. I disagree, in Sweden our police force is nothing like LAPD. theres barely any corruption and no nearly as much freedom given to the police force, the way some cops are acting as if they are superior human beings (some sort of judge dredd mentality). partly probably because of culture but also because of the way swedish policemen are more restricted by law when it comes to using force and violence. Also, police departments should never ever take care of cases within their own ranks. this is disgusting. but from what Ive heard about the LAPD and how incredibly corrupt some US police-departments seem to be (NYPD is another one that comes to mind) sadly, this doesnt surprise me at all.
I'll give you that your police force has less corruption. However, keep in mind that I feel a lot of the time like NY is one of the worst states in the US, the NYPD is actually not so bad. In the 70s and 80s, yes, but since the early/mid 90s or so the NYPD has actually been pretty good. There have been a couple incidents here and there, but mostly they've been pretty good. LAPD is going above and beyond to prove how much of a bunch of corrupt sleazeballs they are at the moment though. For some reason most television shows seem to portray NYPD in a negative light, but in reality I have no complaints as someone who interacts with them frequently.
|
On February 17 2013 04:46 Underkoffer wrote:
Runs away -> gets shot in back for self defence?
It wasn't that simple.
Link
|
On February 17 2013 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement? Maybe read when I said that responsible trained civilians should have it? oh right you cannot read. I'm fine with that so long as it's reasonable. But some level of gun control is necessary. The guy who got shot in the OP shouldn't have had one.
I a glad we are reaching a common ground here.
I also agree with what you posted right now.
But i do not nor will ever justify the action by the police officer.
|
you would think the LAPD would have learned from last weeks shooting up of the truck when they were looking for the dolan guy ... sigh
|
I'm getting almost no independent information on this incident from Google. Where are people getting this meth stuff from?
|
On February 17 2013 04:43 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:41 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea. I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either. Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent? Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user?
It's unsettling how hard you are trying to avoid the brunt of the matter by focusing your efforts on meaningless tangents.
Read the evidence posted and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. Instead why not take the time you are spending on responding to meaningless tangents and read up and reply with counter-evidence? The cited articles and quotes are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself from cops" is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
