If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On March 26 2013 00:40 micronesia wrote:

Well the bottom gun in that picture has a pistol grip which increases potential lethality by approximately 2.3*10^(-4)%.

Also, the bottom gun is emotionally associated with mass shootings of innocent people so we should ban it. We should do it with other things too. For example, I associate ski masks with holdups so we should ban them on those grounds.

On March 26 2013 00:37 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote:


So they are terrified of the british and they made a government that wont become as tyrannical as the british. So they made a set of rules so the newly found government wont be like the red coats. So by that logic, the first and fourth amendment are outated too right? Because there's no imminent threat of the british empire to america and they should remove it for the security of the people because the government is so benevolent to protect its citizens right?

Also I don't know if this was posted yet so I'll just put this right here
ASSAULT "WEAPONS"

For the people who use the terms "hunting rifles" and "assault weapons"

On March 26 2013 02:03 Thor.Rush wrote:
Wait till someone close to you gets killed by a gun, and see what you think. Sane, intelligent, kind human beings are very capable of losing control (from drugs, depression etc) and shooting someone or themselves.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is one the most violent countries in the world with a life expectancy lower than Taiwan, so I do think guns should be legal there. In a country like Sweden though? Never.

On March 27 2013 19:29 DannyJ wrote:


That's a strange dig at both the US and Taiwan...

You do know Taiwan has a higher GDP (PPP) per capita than most European nations, right? Not to mention violence is only a VERY small contributer out of many that effect life expectancy stats in developed nations ( and most others).

Also there is limited evidence to show America is much more "violent" than other nations, so I don't see why you'd think guns SHOULD be legal there. The lethality rate is clearly higher, not violent crime. This fact can be directly linked to easy access of guns which are responsible for nearly 70% of all homicides. Your train of thought is nonsensical.

On April 02 2013 10:19 Millitron wrote:

Guns don't cause homicide. The US murder rate is around 4 times higher than most places in Europe, but even if you completely get rid of every last gun, and every single murderer that had planned on using a gun simply gives up, instead of finding another weapon, the US STILL has a murder rate twice as high as Europe. Guns have very little to do with it, it's mostly socioeconomic. There isn't really a Swedish Detroit after all.

On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:

A thread just got closed where someone posted a poll made with law enforcement officers. This is the result for one of the questions:


From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous...

On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:

A thread just got closed where someone posted a poll made with law enforcement officers. This is the result for one of the questions:


From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous...

On April 10 2013 00:41 ZasZ. wrote:


Well there is a lot of overlap between those poll choices, so I could see some confusion there. For example, the most popular answer was "poor parenting and/or family values." I would say that is very much tied into socioeconomic disparity. Low-income parents (usually single mothers) are either forced to work multiple jobs in order to support their children, limiting the amount of active parenting they can do, or they just don't support their children, turning them out to the streets. There is no question that it is more difficult for a low-income family to provide for their children, and that can have repercussions on the mentality of the child.

I'm not surprised that more police officers, when they pick up a perpetrator of a violent crime, see the lack of morals as a reflection on their upbringing and not a socioeconomic issue, per se.

On April 10 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
I would kind of hope that when you ask a law enforcer if they would enforce the law, and they answer no, it sets off red flags...

On April 10 2013 00:33 Djzapz wrote:
From the other graphs, it seems like law enforcement doesn't believe that gun control is an effective way of reducing crime, but they also don't think it's socioeconomic, even though we know that it pretty much is. Too often, people refer to the opinion of "police chiefs" as if they knew what they were talking about... But how in hell can only 1.6% of them think that it's economic and related to social inequality? It's ridiculous...

On April 10 2013 01:27 Kaitlin wrote:


I used to read the comics in the Sunday newspaper, but no longer. I find that reading posts like this on TL satisfy my appetite for comedy. So, the opinion of a large quantity of people who dedicate their lives to public service, who see these issues play out every day, differs from what you've been told, and your conclusion is that what you've been told is "right" and "it's ridiculous" that their opinion differs from that. Yep, that about sums up what I've come to expect in these threads.

Does anyone ever take a step back and consider that maybe they've been sold a bill of goods by people with an agenda and they are wrong ? I guess that comes with life experience, something that is lacking here.

On April 10 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:

People who dedicate their lives to solving crime and enforcing law don't necessarily know the reasons why this crime exists. I don't know why you would think that they somehow have a better grasp than the researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the source of the problem...

In many cases, it's the research that leads to policy, because statistics gathered by professionals, PhD's who have dedicated their lives to social sciences, are possibly better than the opinion of grunts who go out and catch bad guys.

Law enforcement are just that. They enforce laws. Law makers on the other hand, should build laws based on expertise. Not the feeling of the guys who obey.


You try to discredit what I said by pretending to be amused by it, but really all you're doing is putting too much faith on the opinions of the dudes who follow orders. They work in the streets so they know some stuff, but don't expect a police officer to give much thought to the economic and social conditions of the people they have to deal with. They're excellent at dealing with the front of criminality, but they're not the ones who study the roots.

On April 10 2013 01:45 Kaitlin wrote:


If the police chiefs' opinions aren't relevant, why were they polled ? Obviously somebody thought they had relevant insight into the matter. I think you put too much credibility into "social research".

On April 10 2013 01:35 Djzapz wrote:

People who dedicate their lives to solving crime and enforcing law don't necessarily know the reasons why this crime exists. I don't know why you would think that they somehow have a better grasp than the researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the source of the problem...

In many cases, it's the research that leads to policy, because statistics gathered by professionals, PhD's who have dedicated their lives to social sciences, are possibly better than the opinion of grunts who go out and catch bad guys.

Law enforcement are just that. They enforce laws. Law makers on the other hand, should build laws based on expertise. Not the feeling of the guys who obey.


You try to discredit what I said by pretending to be amused by it, but really all you're doing is putting too much faith on the opinions of the dudes who follow orders. They work in the streets so they know some stuff, but don't expect a police officer to give much thought to the economic and social conditions of the people they have to deal with. They're excellent at dealing with the front of criminality, but they're not the ones who study the roots.