The Cellar - Guns don't kill people ....

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Guns don't kill people .... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24412)

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 848828)

Our pediatrician asks pretty regularly too. I'm in favor of the question. If the simple question can get an idiot gun owner who isn't practicing safe gun storage around kids to pause and think for a minute about what they are doing, then it's worth it. It's like asking if you smoke or drink or do other things that increase your risk of getting hurt. Simple patient history questions.

And even the ones that choose to lie to the doctor(you can do that), may think about cleaning up their act on the way home. No harm, no foul. :thumb:

"On a purely logistical level the idea of removing all guns from all but a qualified few, in a country as large and legislatively fragmented as the US seems an exercise in futility."

Oh, it would (again) be a long, bloody, expensive process, but, as I think on it, *confiscation could work.

*not only by way of directly seizing guns, but also by way of raising the requirements for ownership, possession, and use to inhuman levels; by making manufacturers, sellers, importers, etc. jump through impossible hoops; by -- in the manner of 'hate crimes' -- appending awful penalties to crimes where a gun was even present; and on and on. Only after it's nigh-impossible to have a gun and be legal does the legit door-to-door confiscation need to happen.

And, of course, the most successful tactic is simply redirecting the herd toward 'gun = bad'...change the nation's heart (so to speak) and mass voluntary disarming follows (in in drips and drabs, certainly, over the long haul, but disarmed is disarmed, yes?).

It won't happen in a year, or five, or even ten, but over a twenty year frame, with the application of incremental change, America would be gun-free.

I, of course, will never see that having been shot down for refusing to hand over my Stoeger and shells...small price to pay, I guess, for utopia...*shrug*

I can't hear the audio...what wise course does he suggest?

Gun free isn't the goal. The UK isn't gun free. Don't expect it ever will be. Wouldn't want it to be. They're a tool, they have their place. I just dont think that place is in the bedroom, the kitchen, the classroom or the restaurant. I also don't think it is necessarily healthy for a society for huge swathes of it to be routinely armed to the teeeth and ready for action.

There should be restrictions in place on the number and power of the guns available to buy for private use and controls on how they are stored and used.

You aren't allowed to drive a car on public roads without a driving licence and appropriate insurance. I don't see why firearms training and licences can't be a requirement for gun ownership. And I don't see why it would be unreasonable to expect that someone wishing to accrue a collection of firearms as a hobby or interest should have to observe certain safety protocols. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to register sales of guns. In order to make it easier to track firearms which have made their way into black market or criminal fraternity.

None of that would require anybody to come and take away your Stoeger and shells

"Gun free isn't the goal."

Not there, perhaps.

#

"You aren't allowed to drive a car on public roads without a driving licence and appropriate insurance."

Not about 'allow' but about 'catch me if you can'.

#

"I don't see why firearms training and licences can't be a requirement for gun ownership."

Hey, I'm all for that!

I, of course, decline to participate

"None of that would require anybody to come and take away your Stoeger and shells"

Not at first, no.

See the law in New York.

One year to register.

Imagine that federalized.

Me: not doin' it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk (Post 848968)

I can't hear the audio...what wise course does he suggest?

Here's a link to the vid at YouTube, Henry, maybe it'll work better for ya.

It's more detailed than this, but, one of his ideas is to stop glorifying the killer in the news. To let the poor miserable fuck die the way he lived, invisibly. Everybody knows the killer's name, it's repeated in the news ad nauseam, but no one ever remembers the guy who stopped him. No more "They'll remember my name forever!"-type thing.

Guy makes some other good points, too.

Chew on this, too. Y'all.

Attachment 42518
Attachment 42519
Attachment 42520

More of the infographic, with sources, here.

Could one of our Australian dwellars please tell me if the info here bears out, or, if the info has been manipulated, or somesuch?

*ahem*

Quote:

Yesterday, a conservative friend of mine posted on Facebook that gun crime numbers in the UK have gone through the roof since the government banned guns. Of course they didn't ban all guns, but that's beside the point. It took some pushing to find out his source. It came from Jim Hoft's blog on the site of the libertarian magazine Human Events. The Human Events blog post was, in turn, a block quote of a column on the far right site Townhall by News Editor Katie Pavlich. The quote my friend gave began with this:

Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we've heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We've also heard the reason the United States has a "gun crime problem" is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.
That's Pavlich's introduction to a block quote from the British conservative tabloid, The Daily Mail. Here's the key part of the Mail's article:

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? That sure blows a hole in the liberals' argument that fewer guns make us safer. Not only does it not make us safer, it makes us less safe. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns! And, for some reason, fewer guns seems to make criminals more likely to use theirs. So, why aren't we hearing about this on the news? Yes, I know the mainstream media is run by anti-American liberals, but why aren't we hearing about on Fox or talk radio? Could it be that it's complete BS? Yes, it could. If Pavlich had bothered to look at the top of the page on the Mail article, she would have noticed that the article was published on January 10, 2003, Those "Government's latest crime figures" refer to the 2001/2 reporting year. The figures are over ten years old.

Quote:

Locating the correct figures and making sense of them took some work. When I did find them, this is what my crunching revealed. The British reporting figures are for England and Wales only. Northern Ireland is omitted because they are a special problem. Scotland has a different legal system, so the the definitions of crimes don't match up with those of its two southern neighbors. In the England and Wales statistics, total gun crimes includes air guns and fake guns. I eliminated air guns, which made up about half of the total gun crimes statistic. For the first two years below, fake guns were not separated out. The real gun figure should be a couple hundred smaller. The Daily Mail article includes fake guns in its figures.

Quote:

In 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre, there were 6063 gun crimes in the UK (that includes fake guns).

In 1997, the year they phased in the new law outlawing handguns, the number went down to 4904, a 17% drop in one year.

In 1998, they separated fake guns from the real gun statistics.

In 2000/1, the number of gun crimes was up to 6683. That's the first number the Daily Mail article mentions. It's a huge increase. The UK was in the midst of an epidemic of drug-gang violence at the time.

In 2001/2, the second year in the Daily Mail article, the number had gone up to 8778, however, this number was inflated by some changes in definitions and reporting. In any case, everyone agrees that it was an increase over the year before.

Beginning in 2003, the numbers started going down and have continued ever since.

Quote:

In 2010/1, the last year for which figures are available, the number had dropped to 5411. That's about ten percent lower than in the year of the Dunblane massacre. For comparison, in that year, the US had over 300,000 gun crimes.

These figures do not support the popular conservative argument that more guns equals less crime. Even if there was a rough correlation, it's naive to think that that one variable is the only factor determining how much crime we have. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Quote:

PS: At some some point, Pavlich did find out that the Mail article is extremely out of date and admitted it (Hoft has not). Rather than simply say "oops" and move on, she went hunting for different statistics to support her argument. The Mail came to her rescue with a 2009 article referencing the 2007/8 figures. I guess five year-old figures are better than ten year-old figures.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year--a rise of 89 per cent.
I went back to my sources to figure out what the hell they're talking about. Both Mail articles used figures that included fake guns. My figures for real guns are 4643 in 1998/99 and 7403 for 2007/8. That's a 62% increase--big, but it's not 89%. That increase needs to be taken in the context of a six year trend of gun crimes decreasing and that the newer number uses methods that result in higher numbers than the earlier figure.

That's all fine and dandy, but what explains the difference between 89% and 62%. Here's something I missed my first time through. After the handgun ban went into effect, fake gun crime increased. In 1998/99 there were 566 fake gun crimes and in 2007/8 there were 2562, well over four times as many. The lesson here is that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will use toys.

http://johnmckay.blogspot.co.uk/2013...=1358551084069

Quote:

The lesson here is that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will use toys.

:lol2:

Those motherfuckers will die with a toy in their hand, then, if they bring that shit to my house.

Quote:

...outlaws will use toys.

:headshake...Goddamn.

Also, in America if you take a toy pistol (fake gun) into a bank, and say "Gimme money!", guess what you get charged with?

Armed robbery. No different from a 'real' gun.

I think.

You're right. If you use a fake gun in a crime it's charged as if the gun were real. Taking the fake guns out of the crime stats was a dishonest manipulation.

So is claiming that 88.8% of the USA's population owns guns and that number is what is reducing crime in America compared to Great Britain. So is not owning up to the different ways the governments in both countries report crime. If Grav's site source has its base statistic wrong, how can anything else it is saying have any real merit?

Quote:

In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.

In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6).

From here:
http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/20...eapon-updated/

Yes. The years of measurement are different, but I think the numbers tell the story.

My point was that in the article quoted, the author was dishonest in taking statistics and pulling data out of them in order to change the results to what he wanted. I didn't comment on anything else.

I don't care what the politics of an author are; I do care whether the numbers are honestly reported and correct. I realize that both sides manipulate numbers, but I was only commenting on the article at hand. This author was dishonest. Admittedly, he was upfront about his dishonesty.

Otho, i'm sorry, I wasnt really responding to you, I was just piggybacking off your post so that I could add my two cents about Grav's previous post.

:p:

Sorry, I didn't mean to be testy ... I normally stay out of this thread. :)

If anyone is really interested they can go to CDC's website and look up stats for deaths by all causes.

If guns are the issue themselves why are the streets of Canada not running red with blood as the streets of the US are ?

That would be liquid littering which is rude and un-Canadian. :haha:

If violent movies and video games are the issue themselves why are the streets of Canada not running red with blood as the streets of the US are ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8463957.html

Quote:

Figures out next month are expected to confirm the long-term decline in gun crime which resulted in 39 people shot dead in 2011/12 compared with a high of 96 ten years earlier.

SNIP

But improved intelligence-led operations, poor quality guns and munitions, better community links to divert gang activity, and improved surgery for gunshot victims have all contributed to reduced deaths from gun violence, according to experts and police.

A comparative shortage of guns in circulation has triggered a price spike in the underworld firearms market, according to detectives.

More at the link.

Our most basic right is the vote. The vote is limited - one vote per person per election, must be a citizen, must be registered to vote, citizens in prison can't vote, must be 18 or older to vote, etc. Why is that we can limit voting rights, but not gun rights?

what happened foot? Did she sneak them out??

I'm so sorry for what is going on with you right now...I don't pretend to know what it is but I know you're hurting and I'm truly sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trilby (Post 850024)

what happened foot? Did she sneak them out??

I'm so sorry for what is going on with you right now...I don't pretend to know what it is but I know you're hurting and I'm truly sorry.

I guess so. Thanks. I know it will be over by summer. The key is to keep things amicable as long as the kids are minors.

happy place...

ugh.

I don't know what to say that doesn't sound---platitudinous...maybe you could smash some dishes?

Quote:

Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Don't stop, it'll soon be here,
It'll be, better than before,
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone.

You've got to many cool happenings on the horizon, another mile of bad road is a piece of cake. :thumb2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gravdigr (Post 849142)

Could one of our Australian dwellars please tell me if the info here bears out, or, if the info has been manipulated, or somesuch?

Haven't watched the video - crappy download speeds - but found this:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-faking-...se.html#ajTabs

Which should answer all your questions. If you can read around all the annoying adds.

ETA Short version:

Quote:

While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15 percent of these resulting from firearms. Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occured in Australia.

Homicide and suicide rates have declined in Australia since the 1990s. Deaths results from firearms have plunged even more dramatically. In Australia, mass shootings similar to Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield have not occurred for over a decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 850152)

If you can read around all the annoying adds.

*cough*adblock*couch*

This 4-page article is the first in a new series on the gun industry in the US.

NY Times
MIKE McINTIRE
1/26/13

Selling a New Generation on Guns

Quote:

Threatened by long-term declining participation in shooting sports,
the firearms industry has poured millions of dollars into a broad campaign
to ensure its future by getting guns into the hands of more, and younger, children.

The industry’s strategies include giving firearms, ammunition and cash to youth groups;
weakening state restrictions on hunting by young children;
marketing an affordable military-style rifle for “junior shooters” and
sponsoring semiautomatic-handgun competitions for youths;
and developing a target-shooting video game that promotes brand-name weapons,
with links to the Web sites of their makers.

The pages of Junior Shooters, an industry-supported magazine
that seeks to get children involved in the recreational use of firearms,
once featured a smiling 15-year-old girl clutching a semiautomatic rifle.
At the end of an accompanying article that extolled target shooting with a Bushmaster AR-15
— an advertisement elsewhere in the magazine directed readers to a coupon for buying one
— the author encouraged youngsters to share the article with a parent.
“Who knows?” it said. “Maybe you’ll find a Bushmaster AR-15 under
your tree some frosty Christmas morning!”
<snip>
Attachment 42596

The overall objective was summed up in another study, commissioned last year by the shooting sports industry,
that suggested encouraging children experienced in firearms to recruit other young people.
The report, which focused on children ages 8 to 17, said these “peer ambassadors”
should help introduce wary youngsters to guns slowly, perhaps through paintball,
archery or some other less intimidating activity.
“The point should be to get newcomers started shooting something,
with the natural next step being a move toward actual firearms,”
said the report, which was prepared for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Hunting Heritage Trust.
<snip>

Well, now we know what all those tobacco marketing executives are doing now. :mad:

Learning to properly handle,(and learning by mistakes every kid is bound to make), a single shot 22, is a smarter option. If a kid makes the ultimate mistake of shooting a person, including themselves, a 22 gives a good survival rate.

I don't approve of minors shooting high powered rifles. They kick, and kick hard. Children should not be subjecting their still growing joints and connective tissue, to repeated heavy blows.
Sure, they get thumped playing sports and general rough-housing, but that's not the same. A day at the range would be like hitting themselves with a hammer, in the same spot, about a hundred times.

If only kids understood what a burden this huge penis is... sigh :o

Hence, make dad jealous.

Well, the plan from the "don't increase gun laws" contingent is "don't increase gun laws" and only "don't increase gun laws".

Good idea. Been working so far, let's stick with it.

Well perhaps if we actually enforced the laws we have instead of kneecaping the FTA we might get somewhere, because new laws that are equally unenforced will service just as well as ones that are not there. One a side note I think the name of the FTA should be changed to Firearms Alcohol and Tobacco and then they will be called the FAT squad.

They are in charge of explosives, too- FATE.

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - reports

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ports-20130214

South Africa is a high crime country, and if you didn't have legs, you'd feel extra vulnerable, and want to spring to your defence. I understand him being armed and ready to use. Pity he seems to have skipped the "target identification" step, and jumped to a conclusion. Legally, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. He must feel like a real heel.

Did I miss any?

Yep, missed one.

Dang, that was quick.

See http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3szmvh/

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 852757)

Did I miss any?

He was handy - capped her ass

Quote:

Originally Posted by toranokaze (Post 852583)

Well perhaps if we actually enforced the laws we have instead of kneecaping the FTA we might get somewhere,

That would require more agents and more prisons, which would increase gubmint spending.... and that will go nowhere in a repubican controlled house.

Next!

Quote:

90-Year-Old Killed, Suspect Arrested in Bucks Co. Standoff

Cairns, according to authorities, opened fire on officers around 7:40 Tuesday night. Police fired at least four rounds in return. During the gun battle, a downstairs neighbor, a 90-year-old woman, was shot and killed,

If only the old gal had been packing heat, she might be alive today! :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 850387)

Addie, age 5, has been shooting a .22 for over a year now. My oldest daughter, age 19, shoots my .45-70 & .577 Snider. I think this year, I will introduce Addie to my 8 gauge double or my 7 bore elephant gun

Quote:

“Download this gun”: 3D-printed semi-automatic fires over 600 rounds
And the Department of Justice says there's nothing illegal about it, either.

Yeah, that's gonna take gun control from difficult to effectively impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 855228)

Yeah, that's gonna take gun control from difficult to effectively impossible.

Oh noes! Then we'll be faced with addressing the real problems in this country.

That's nothing, I've downloaded the plans for a thermonuclear hand grenade.

When I went through US Army basic training, the hand grenade training was conducted by a cadre with imagination. Recruits were seated in outdoor bleachers on a firing range as an instructor presented a lecture followed by a demonstration in which the instructor threw a grenade (inert; but, the recruits didn't know it) out to a predetermined spot on the range. When the dummy grenade hit the ground, another cadre member set off a nuclear explosion training simulator (a relatively new pyro-technique that sent up flames and smoke in a massive mushroom cloud) prepositioned on that spot. The results were spectacular and the recruits gave the demonstration a standing ovation. The legend of the thermonuclear hand grenade was born.

I didn't realize there was a thermonuclear handgrenade.
I guess we already have addressed the real problems in this country, so never mind.

Of course we've addressed the real problems in this country. They're addressed: White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500, Capitol Building E. Capitol St. NE and First St. NE Washington DC 20004, and Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street NE Washington DC 20543.

Quote:

Originally Posted by footfootfoot (Post 855241)

I didn't realize there was a thermonuclear handgrenade.
I guess we already have addressed the real problems in this country, so never mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 855248)

I'm seeing a solution.

The problem is untrained people trying to solve their problems with a pistol or shotgun. ;)

Finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard until you have decided to shoot. Even I know that. Idiot.

At least his sign is properly punctuated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 855238)

That's nothing, I've downloaded the plans for a thermonuclear hand grenade.

Well, not quite a hand grenade, but about as close as you can get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...lear_device%29

tl;dr recoilless rifle, range 2 km, yield 0.02 kilotons, nasty radiation.

Imagine if plans for the Ned Kelly device had been realized. Probably would have looked just like that except with a can of Fosters at the front.