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

On May 26 2018 09:13 superstartran wrote:




And the UK homicide stats would look quite differently if they recorded them like the FBI does. As would many other countries.

On May 26 2018 09:15 Plansix wrote: Citation please and please show your work.

Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always the case. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longer-term homicide trend figures. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003. Also, where several people are killed by the same suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of victims killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Cumbrian shootings committed by Derrick Bird on 2 June 2010 are counted as 12 homicides rather than one incident in the year ending March 2011 data. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2016/homicide

On May 26 2018 09:13 superstartran wrote:
In the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place

On May 26 2018 09:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The US has about 5x as many homicides as the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

So unless you're saying that the UK fails to report 80% of its homicides every year, I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be.

On May 26 2018 09:30 superstartran wrote:




My argument is that you cannot just cross compare homicide rates because of how both sides report homicide.

On May 26 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:



That pisses me off big time though. They are absolutely hypocritical, want to ban bumpstocks (which I actually agree with, there's 0 reason to have a fully automatic weapon), but then suddenly want to say it's ok to have relatively easy access to fully automatics? What?

On May 26 2018 09:59 r.Evo wrote:
Neither Plansix (nor anyone else for that matter that I noticed) argued: "Bring on fully automatic weapons!" like you keep claiming.

What multiple people argued is fully automatic weapons would be totally fine, if combined with a similar approach to guns in general like for example Switzerland.

You can't just take the first portion of that sentence and pretend the stance of the other side is hypocritical because they would be massively against fully automatic weapons for civilians under the current laws and approaches the US has.

Well, you can. But that sounds quite a bit like this selective reading and cherry picking you seem to be strongly against.

On May 26 2018 13:39 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah that's all very interesting.

So, what do you think of the swiss system, would you like to see it implemented in the US?

On May 26 2018 14:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i have to give massive respect to superstratran for standing up for his opinions. youre literally playing 1 v everyone in this thread, in my opinion, getting dumpstered, and youre still arguing. good for you mate

On May 26 2018 09:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Again, unless you're claiming that the UK's system causes an under-reporting of 500%, I fail to see how your quotes are remotely relevant. Monthly trends may be off. Yearly trends could be off by several percentage points. But there would need to be about 2500 forgotten murdered people every year in the UK to come close to the US'.

Of 13000 made-up American murders.

On May 26 2018 14:00 superstartran wrote:




Couldn't implement registry without blowing up the 2nd Amendment. I've already gone over why.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States


Good luck with that.

On May 26 2018 14:07 superstartran wrote:




Good thing no one here has proven anything. It's the same ol "man brah guns are bad" arguments repetitively.

On May 26 2018 14:11 Nebuchad wrote:


"Look at the swiss system, it works, so clearly it's not about the guns it's about the culture."
"So would you like to change the culture to get to something that works, like the swiss system?"
"Oh no of course not."

On May 26 2018 14:23 superstartran wrote:



You asked about what I would like to implement from the Swiss law system, not about Swiss gun culture. Changing gun culture is a dramatically different question, and much harder to accomplish. Part of the reason why Swiss gun culture works / is fine is because of the fact that military service is a requirement, so pretty much everyone understands the basic operations of a gun, the capabilities of guns, and how to respect it. Requiring a 6 week mandatory course before getting a gun would probably be the first step into accomplishing that goal.


The national registry laws would be struck down as unconstitutional under current interpretation of the constitution. Haynes vs U.S. pretty much already shuts down most state gun registry schemes. Without national registry, the license/permit system pretty much is worthless.

On May 26 2018 14:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:

there is no definitive proof, there cant be. there can only be convincing arguments for and against