U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[Bird_Gunner45]

Bird gunner the US overall homicide rate and suicide rates are not exceptional, in fact France's suicide rate is higher and lets not talk about South Korea and Japan both which have strict gun control.

Plus those homicides listed include "justified homicides" which are legitimate self defense and police shootings.

Take a look at US homicides rates at the county level and you quickly realize the majority are the result of social issues the politicians have failed to address for the last 25 years. Blaming guns has been the red herring to avoid difficult conversations involving specific groups and cultures which lead to those clusters of homicides.

If people want to sit down and talk about how to reduce mass attacks, without starting out with gun control, but analyzing all of them and finding common issues, then you make progress. I would like the CDC to do a serious and deep study of the link of anti-depressant drugs and mass attacks, either to support that theory or remove it from the table.

You're right about the suicide rate, but the rate in which guns used are, which is the larger point. I don't believe anywhere was it suggested that the overall suicide rates were higher rather than the rates with gun use (which is statistically higher beyond any doubt). The murder rates, however are absolutely higher in the US than other western countries as I showed above. The US murder rate of 42.01/100,000 places it 99th highest in the world. At first glance this doesn't seem bad (half way-ish) until you actually look at the countries above it. Compared to other western countries such as France (163rd highest, 10.54), Canada (142nd, 16.23), Japan (188th, 3.97), South Korea (122nd, 25.32), and Germany (177th, 8.44) the US is 100%, undoubtedly, beyond reproach, higher and significantly so. The next highest of the nations mentioned, South Korea, has just over half of the murder rate of the US per capita.

As for murder levels, I would like to see the data you have by county level. In relation to per capita murder by state the highest are:

1. Louisana;
2. Missisippi;
3. Missouri; and
4. South Carolina.

In gross numbers, the leading states are California (1861), Texas (1316), Florida (1041), and Illinois (744). As these are all in the top 5 of states by population this isn't surprisingly or statistically out of line. They even are much lower per capita than other states, which means that the statistical analysis for the per capita ratio used in the study that determined the US had the 99th highest rate was actually LOWERED by these states rather than lifted. As an example- if you take the states of Oklahoma, Conneticut, Lousiana, Kansas, Alabama, New Mexico, Mississippi, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Washington State (a mix of blue/red states) which have a population similar to that of California (38,940,307) you actually get 495 MORE murders than in California proper (2356). If you go by county per capita the highest county is Orleans Parish (New Orleans), Coahoma County, Mississippi (total population of 25,000 in rural state area), Phillips County, Arkansas (rural county, population 22,000), then St. Louis City. If you take a look at the two attached images, the CPRC graph depicts murder rate while the second graph depicts population distribution. that they are are similar isn't statistically or logically surprising.

In terms of gangs, undoubtedly they are a problem. That said, the assertion that gang account for most murders isn't contentious. the National Gang centre figures show that there were 2363 gang related murders, of which 67.2% took place in cities over 100,000 (or on the flip side 32.8% took place in smaller more rural cities). The FBI indicates that a total of 14,827 people were murdered that year, meaning gang related murders accounted for 16% of the total homicide rate. Moreover, if you take a look at murder rates by age you find that total murder victims of all sexes and races between the ages of 13 and 34 (prime gang age group) account for 6920 of the total murders, or 47%.This makes the 2363 murders by gangs high in that age range, but certainly not out of place statistically. Of interest also since we need to have, as you say"...difficult conversations involving specific groups and cultures which lead to those clusters of homicides" the racial break up of murders was 4582 white, 5531 black, 240 other, and 4228 "unknown" victims. The rate of murders among blacks is undoubtedly higher than among whites which underlies social problems. However, murder isn't a one race issue, or gang issue, it's a US issue. By weapon, guns accounted for 8855 murders, knives 1589, and other weapons (including hands and fists) 2321. So, guns accounted for 4940 more murders than other causes combined. Finally, gun related murders by age show that there were a total of 3081 murder victims with guns in the groups ranging ages 1-12 (117!!!!!) and 35+ (2964). Even if we assumed that all 5768 gun related murders in the age 13-34 range were gang related, 45% of gun related murders would still be outside of this group.

For a fun fact, there were 173 gun related murders in Canada that year. so, there were 56 less US children aged 1-12 murdered with firearms than in all of Canada. If you look at the excel spreadsheet from FBI records there are more fun facts. France, in 2012, had 35 murders by firearm, meaning that there were 28 more gun related murders in the US by "romantic triangle" than in all of France. Japan had 11 murders by firearms, which is 9 more than babysitters killing children in the US and 25 less than alcohol related shooting murders in the US. If you look at the statistical breakdown of gun related murders the implication that "gang" related murders as the driver is clearly wrong.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2012.xls

As for your last comment I have said before and will say again that yes, guns aren't 100% to blame for the mass shootings. There is a need for a cultural shift in the US, including the way that guns are viewed. The comment "if people want to sit down and talk about how to reduce mass attacks, without starting out with gun controls..." is insincere at best since it is equal parts gun control proponents and equal parts NRA/gun right proponents that jump up every time there's a mass shooting and cry about their respective issues.

The statistics clearly indicate that the US has a gun problem. There's no other way to account for a difference of 7112 gun murders between Canada and the US if the Canadian total of 173 was corrected for population difference. That Canada has so many more gun related murders than other western countries would seem to indicate that we need changes here too, though that's another story.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Areas with large numbers of backyard swimming pools tend to have more drownings, too. Correlation does not equal causation.

Statistics without context can be very misleading, and countries often define criminal data differently.

The UK, at one point, did not include terrorism deaths (Northern Ireland) in with its homicide numbers.

Japan has a very low murder rate, but a very high suicide rate. Firearms owners often point to the lack of lawful private firearm ownership there to prove that high rates of firearms ownership have no bearing on suicide. Japan's cultural differences account for some of that - they have a different view of suicide than we do - but police culture apparently influences their statistics a lot as well. Failing to solve a crime is dishonourable, so an unknown number of homicides are asserted to be suicides instead - even Clintonesque ones like multiple blows to the head and several gunshots in the back.

Cultural differences, and some other factors, are discussed at https://mises.org/blog/few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-safer-canada.

There is a story behind every number, and relying on numbers alone can lead to false conclusions.

US society has many imperfections, many/most of which stem from its history. The effects of their Civil War are still being felt, and the effects of slavery and lingering racial discrimination will continue to cause problems for generations. Racial policies have helped to drive breakdown of families and gang activity, which is why a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by young black men, whose victims are usually other young black men. This violence is no more inherent in blacks than whites; it is an effect of their environment and imposed history.

Latino gangs are another problem. Decent careers are almost impossible for illegal immigrants. Those that find employment are largely limited to low-paying menial jobs. Latino youth, like their black counterparts, increasingly turn to more adventurous gang activities.

One-quarter of all "gun deaths" (including suicide, which accounts for almost two thirds) result from gang activity. Eighty percent of homicides are gang-related.

Those other countries listed do not have the gang culture that plagues the US, and have other cultural differences as well.

The gang problem is extremely difficult to fix. Nobody knows how to even begin, or how to fund it.

Decent job opportunities and education would help a lot, along with a safe and secure environment in which those can flourish. The recent spike in homicides, after a three-decade decline (even as firearms acquisition and ownership rates shot up), shows what happens when police avoid certain neighbourhoods, or drive by suspicious but not blatantly-obvious criminal activity, due to anti-police activities of Black Lives Matter and inflammatory comments from politicians such as the previous president. This reduction of active policing is known as the "Ferguson Effect". This spike is not happening evenly across the US, but in a handful of cities - and within those cities, certain neighbourhoods. The rest of the country continues to see reductions.

Coincidentally, the prime gang age group, and the majority of those killed would be black.

No amount of "gun control" will fix that. Banning semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips or bayonet lugs or collapsible stocks or flash suppressors will not affect those numbers. Banning bump stocks will not affect those numbers. Banning standard-capacity magazines will not affect those numbers. Blaming the NRA (which, in reality, is nothing more than almost five million US citizens concerned about their constitutionally-guaranteed rights and who rarely abuse them) will not affect those numbers. Secure and safe environments, provided by effective policing and court systems, decent education, especially career-oriented training, and opportunities for normal personal growth will, eventually.

That's a lot harder, and more expensive, though, than yelling at the NRA and/or banning something new after every shooting.

Politicians are usually far more interested in appearing to do something than actually achieving something positive, however. In the case of gangs, though, it's hard to blame them. Skim through https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment. Yes, it's six years old, but it's the last one that I bookmarked. And, if anything's changed, it's likely for the worse.

And then there's http://www.gunfacts.info/blog/the-other-1/

Methinks that you misunderstand the meaning of "no permit".

The laws surrounding concealed and open carry vary from state-to-state, and are sometimes more restrictive in individual cities within those states. Some states require those seeking to carry concealed weapons to undergo training courses in order to get a permit. Some states require background checks only. Some states only issue permits at police discretion regardless of qualification. Some states issue permits to anybody qualified.

And a growing number of states do not require their citizens to take a course or get a permit in order to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right, hence the term "constitutional carry. Do not mistake "no permit required" for "permits will not be issued".

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

Now compare the murder and violent crime rates of those large cities that severely limit, if not outright prevent, the ability of their citizens to carry, or even acquire, firearms with more permissive jurisdictions. It is those cities that suffer from gang-driven violence while preventing honest and productive citizens from adequately defending themselves that drive the US national rates up, while almost gang-free, carry-what-you-want-how-you-want-where-you-want, constitutional-carry places like Vermont enjoy the very low crime rates that you quote.

See the Mises article that I posted above. There are many factors that influence these numbers, and if anybody would rather live in Iraq than the US, well...

I've driven up and down the eastern US, and halfway across the northern US, many, many times and only once felt uncomfortable (wrong exit from the Interstate in Chicago pre-GPS, and asking for directions was clearly not advisable). I'd not likely go for even a much shorter drive in Iraq, at least not unarmed, unarmoured, and unaccompanied. How about you?

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

US crime is not homogenous, and I am quite comfortable in those areas of the US that I have travelled and/or frequent, including night-time. I have been less comfortable in parts of my home country - England, especially at night. I have the luxury, however, of picking which areas that I travel and which I avoid, and the sense to know the difference.

I am not uncomfortable in states with solid concealed- or open-carry laws at all. I actually feel safer among armed citizens.

And a well-researched "opinion piece" compared to numbers out of context? You betcha.

Anecdotal and emotional rather than logical, and different individuals will respond differently. I'd be pissed in a situation where neither I nor other people could return fire but merely await death.

Here's another anecdote to show a different reaction: "The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the massacre where both of her parents were killed. She later testified that she would have liked to have had her gun during it, but said, "it was a hundred feet away in my car" (she had feared that if she was caught carrying it she might lose her chiropractor's license).[15] She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting for more.

Hupp lost her parents that afternoon and gained the spotlight when she told the media she was not mad at Hennard. Instead she blamed the Texas Legislature for not allowing her to lawfully bring her gun into a restaurant.

In 1996, she won District 54 in the Texas House of Representatives, representing Bell, Burnet and Lampasas counties for five terms. She did not seek a sixth term and now tours the country advocating against gun control.

"I still get angry when I think about it," said Hupp. "I'm now married to the guy that was my boyfriend at the time. We have two children, and I'm saddened by the fact that they haven't gotten the chance to meet their grandparents." See http://kdhnews.com/news/survivors-reflect-on-oct-luby-s-shooting/article_e2660bfc-d24a-5566-a65f-a67a9fe6365b.html for more.

And a small selection of her Youtube appearances:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwadYRL_vVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfXQtp7JeM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiF_gO769Lk

No controls? There are about twenty thousand "gun control" laws in the US. Perhaps they are still just one short.

Or, perhaps, some should be eliminated as Suzanna Gratia Hupp helped to do in her case.

But what would you suggest, that has not been tried, unsuccessfully, before? Insanity has been defined as repeating the same thing multiple times and expecting different results.

It's more than one guy and more than just explosives.

And the quoted security measures are at least as much for show as anything, as they can be circumvented by anyone with brains and determination.

The Israelis managed to eliminate hijacking on El Al without those things. They pioneered Sky Marshals and actively profiled passengers. Many western security people pat down grandmothers and pre-pubescent children to avoid the appearance of profiling (also known as "threat assessment").

And, again, eliminate guns, and there are still trucks and still vulnerable potential killzones.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/miscellaneous-gun-control-information/#BCS

I'm going to go on a limb and guess that www.gunfacts.info is pro gun..

also, for the gang discussion, as i noted in the above post, in 2012 822 murders are related to gangland killings and juvenile gangland killings out of a total of 8855 murders by guns. More people were murdered in the US by guns for love triangles than in France, Japan, and South Korea combined. There was also 4582 white gun murder victims, so this isn't only a latino gang problem.

I've read the articles that note the statistics you quote, but also note that they are factually wrong in the evidence that they present. I dont know how anyone can look at the difference in numbers between the US (8855) and other countries (Canada, Japan, S. Korea, etc) and not acknowledge there's some problem. As you say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over. Perhaps if the US stopped doing the same thing (pretending guns aren't a problem) than they will see reduced rates of mass shootings.

 

[Lumber]

No controls? There are about twenty thousand "gun control" laws in the US. Perhaps they are still just one short.

Great post Loachman. However, I disagree with one of your assertions.

You seem to imply (if you didn't mean to, correct me), that places like Vermont and Maine have the lowest crime rates because of their very lax gun control measures, where they allow open and concealed carry with no regulation. However, you then purport that the gun violence in the Stats is actually the result of socio-econimic and cultural issues that haven't been addressed..

Ever to Vermont or Maine? They are the two most homogeneous states in the nation, have roughly average levels of poverty and GDP per capital, and no major cities.

What I'm getting at is, how can you say in one paragraph that gun violence is caused by socio-economic and cultural strife, and then say in another paragraph that the solution to gun violence is to allow regular citizens to open and concealed carry?

Further, while I agree that in some situation, open carry would deter certain crimes, I do not not feel that they would significantly deter someone who is also armed and who has a strong motivation to cause harm. Finally, I would argue that allowing concealed carry would also not significantly improve the safety of an average joe, mainly because the average joe isn't well trained in the US of firearms, and also because the average joe is going to be sh!ting bricks about actually using a gun to if the need arose. I've seen and heard numerous stories where trained servicemen (police or other armed personnel) fire numerous rounds at an assailant, and missed with most of their shots. Do you think a sacred shitless civilian who's never fired his gun at a person, nor who has every really harmed anyone in their life, is going to do any better? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You may have the argument that "well, if bad guys think everyone might have a gun hiding under their shirt, they will be too afraid to try anything", well again I disagree. It will deter some criminals, but it won't deter the one who are really motivated.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that gun control measures will not solve the rampant gang violence, suicides and domestic violence in the states. I used to think so, but now I realize that these violent acts will just carry on with other weapons should we take all the guns away.

However, this is not what has people scared. As you said yourself, you can drive around the states and avoid dangerous areas. You're not involved with gangs, and you're not a woman in an abusive relationship (I think?). So nothing to fear right? Hey, I just won two tickets to a concert in Las Vegas, want to come with me?

What I'm getting at is people are afraid of the unknown, and these mass shootings are causing a great deal of unknown. Las Vegas is supposed to be a hot bed of fake tits and bright lights, not a bunch of white folk getting gun down at a country music concert. Where is "safe"? These mass shootings make it seems like nowhere is safe, and that just doesn't give with the average joe.

So, I don't think we need gun control to solve gang violence, suicides, and domestic violence. But I also don't think that socio-economic changes will prevent mass shootings.

Civilization itself it a lie. It's a bunch of self-interested people getting together because that happens to satisfy their own self-interest. Mass shootings destabilizes the myth of group safety. If we don't prevent these shootings from increasing in scale and frequency, people are going to stop paying their taxes, and what then?!?!

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Lumber]

Further, while I agree that in some situation, open carry would deter certain crimes, I do not not feel that they would significantly deter someone who is also armed and who has a strong motivation to cause harm. Finally, I would argue that allowing concealed carry would also not significantly improve the safety of an average joe, mainly because the average joe isn't well trained in the US of firearms, and also because the average joe is going to be sh!ting bricks about actually using a gun to if the need arose.
[/quote]

YouTube, liveleak and other video streaming sites are full of videos of armed average joe's holding their own against armed attackers. Sometimes even out numbered 3:1 like the woman in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4wjq6cn0To

I wont post the link but if you YouTube search Woman beaten by robber you'll immediately see a video from NJ of a woman getting beaten senseless in front of her 3 year old daughter during a robbery in the middle of the day.

It's clear the woman in the first video didn't have much training but she fared a lot better than the woman in the other video I'm talking about.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Great post Loachman. However, I disagree with one of your assertions.

You seem to imply (if you didn't mean to, correct me), that places like Vermont and Maine have the lowest crime rates because of their very lax gun control measures, where they allow open and concealed carry with no regulation. However, you then purport that the gun violence in the Stats is actually the result of socio-econimic and cultural issues that haven't been addressed..

Ever to Vermont or Maine? They are the two most homogeneous states in the nation, have roughly average levels of poverty and GDP per capital, and no major cities.

What I'm getting at is, how can you say in one paragraph that gun violence is caused by socio-economic and cultural strife, and then say in another paragraph that the solution to gun violence is to allow regular citizens to open and concealed carry?

Further, while I agree that in some situation, open carry would deter certain crimes, I do not not feel that they would significantly deter someone who is also armed and who has a strong motivation to cause harm. Finally, I would argue that allowing concealed carry would also not significantly improve the safety of an average joe, mainly because the average joe isn't well trained in the US of firearms, and also because the average joe is going to be sh!ting bricks about actually using a gun to if the need arose. I've seen and heard numerous stories where trained servicemen (police or other armed personnel) fire numerous rounds at an assailant, and missed with most of their shots. Do you think a sacred shitless civilian who's never fired his gun at a person, nor who has every really harmed anyone in their life, is going to do any better? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You may have the argument that "well, if bad guys think everyone might have a gun hiding under their shirt, they will be too afraid to try anything", well again I disagree. It will deter some criminals, but it won't deter the one who are really motivated.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that gun control measures will not solve the rampant gang violence, suicides and domestic violence in the states. I used to think so, but now I realize that these violent acts will just carry on with other weapons should we take all the guns away.

However, this is not what has people scared. As you said yourself, you can drive around the states and avoid dangerous areas. You're not involved with gangs, and you're not a woman in an abusive relationship (I think?). So nothing to fear right? Hey, I just won two tickets to a concert in Las Vegas, want to come with me?

What I'm getting at is people are afraid of the unknown, and these mass shootings are causing a great deal of unknown. Las Vegas is supposed to be a hot bed of fake tits and bright lights, not a bunch of white folk getting gun down at a country music concert. Where is "safe"? These mass shootings make it seems like nowhere is safe, and that just doesn't give with the average joe.

So, I don't think we need gun control to solve gang violence, suicides, and domestic violence. But I also don't think that socio-economic changes will prevent mass shootings.

Civilization itself it a lie. It's a bunch of self-interested people getting together because that happens to satisfy their own self-interest. Mass shootings destabilizes the myth of group safety. If we don't prevent these shootings from increasing in scale and frequency, people are going to stop paying their taxes, and what then?!?!

Gun control should only be seen as part of a solution to the overwhelming gun violence in the US. There are certainly socio-economic factors at play that guns exacerbate. Small, white, rural counties in Alabama and Mississippi have the highest per capita gun violence rates in the US. Small, largely white, states such as Oklahoma and Nebraska have higher gun violence rates than California and LA county. The murder rate in the US is significantly higher than in most western nations including all causes, so there is an undeniable social element.

As opposed to a "gun control" boogeyman which some seem to fear, I think that there need to be controls short of full out gun control. Do people need to own semi-automatic rifles? Do they need to own multiple? Does there need to be a restriction so that law enforcement dont need to drive around in armoured patrol vehicles? All questions that need to be part of an overall strategy. When a 60-odd year old can kill 58 people and wound 500 with a knife than I will state that knife-control needs to be discussed.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

YouTube, liveleak and other video streaming sites are full of videos of armed average joe's holding their own against armed attackers. Sometimes even out numbered 3:1 like the woman in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4wjq6cn0To

I wont post the link but if you YouTube search Woman beaten by robber you'll immediately see a video from NJ of a woman getting beaten senseless in front of her 3 year old daughter during a robbery in the middle of the day.

It's clear the woman in the first video didn't have much training but she fared a lot better than the woman in the other video I'm talking about.

The problem is when the average joe, who is weak in the use of weapons, starts firing without proper training they put anyone else around them at danger too from stray bullets. Moreover, this puts law enforcement at a disadvantage since its harder to tell who is who or to control a situation when everyone is firing.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Gun control should only be seen as part of a solution to the overwhelming gun violence in the US. There are certainly socio-economic factors at play that guns exacerbate. Small, white, rural counties in Alabama and Mississippi have the highest per capita gun violence rates in the US. Small, largely white, states such as Oklahoma and Nebraska have higher gun violence rates than California and LA county. The murder rate in the US is significantly higher than in most western nations including all causes, so there is an undeniable social element.

As opposed to a "gun control" boogeyman which some seem to fear, I think that there need to be controls short of full out gun control. Do people need to own semi-automatic rifles? Do they need to own multiple? Does there need to be a restriction so that law enforcement dont need to drive around in armoured patrol vehicles? All questions that need to be part of an overall strategy. When a 60-odd year old can kill 58 people and wound 500 with a knife than I will state that knife-control needs to be discussed.

I own two SKS, one is bone stock and the other all Bubba’d up, a semi auto 12 ga, a mini 14, and a semi auto .22 for plinking. I have never pointed any semi auto at a human being, including myself, except in the service of my country. Do I need them? Nope. Do I enjoy using them? Silly question. Why do you feel that I shouldn’t be able to employ my rifles in a sane responsible manner?  Motorcycles today can reach or exceed 250 kmh, all vehicles can exceed the speed limit.  Why do we need them to have that capability? Speed kills, but manufacturers continue to provide the means to do so.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The problem is when the average joe, who is weak in the use of weapons, starts firing without proper training they put anyone else around them at danger too from stray bullets.

While I've been on enough ranges to say the military aren't exactly paragons of weapons use WITH proper training I agree with you. Shooting puts everyone around you at some level of risk. Whether it's target shooters, hunters, soldiers firing warning shots or people using firearms for self-defense, there are risks.  The various degrees of hitting bystanders while using a firearm to save your life (prevent rape etc..) is a balance people have to find for themselves.

Moreover, this puts law enforcement at a disadvantage since its harder to tell who is who or to control a situation when everyone is firing.

While again I think you're right that in a wild west type scenario where the cops show up and everyone is in a boondock saints firefight it causes confusion I think those firefights are few and far between. Check this example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqyDHwZcL1Y
Someone is pinning the cop to the ground. A CCW permit holder approaches and intervenes.  If I recall he ends up shooting the man attacking the police officer then places his pistol on the ground and waits for more police to show up.  Compare that to what happened in Ottawa recently.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-officer-allegedly-assaulted-while-firefighters-stand-by-wife
Ottawa police officer had his arm almost broken by a trained MMA fighter who bested him and wrestled him to the ground.  Four firefighters were watching, the downed officer called out for help but they just stood there and watched. The officer was lucky he wasn't severely hurt.

 

[mariomike]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-officer-allegedly-assaulted-while-firefighters-stand-by-wife
Ottawa police officer had his arm almost broken by a trained MMA fighter who bested him and wrestled him to the ground.  Four firefighters were watching, the downed officer called out for help but they just stood there and watched. The officer was lucky he wasn't severely hurt.

That is disappointing.

This also involved Ottawa Police and Emergency Services,
The paramedics managed to restrain Gregson with Czapnik’s handcuffs and stuff him into the back seat of a cruiser.

"Dying officer thanked paramedic rescuers":
OTTAWA — As Ottawa police officer Eric Czapnik lay dying from a mortal knife wound to the throat, he spoke two final and poignant words to his paramedic rescuers, thanking them.

The patrolman had moments earlier been sitting alone early Dec. 29, writing case notes inside his cruiser parked outside the emergency department of the Ottawa Hospital’s civic campus when a man approached and attacked with a knife.

Four paramedics, none yet publicly identified, ran from the emergency room to help. It wasn’t until a male paramedic grabbed the man in headlock from behind, they realized the assailant had a knife.

As the attacker tried to reach around and stab the male paramedic, a female paramedic wrestled the weapon from his hand. A second female paramedic kicked him in the groin, and all three wrestled him to the ground. Another female paramedic attended to Czapnik.

As he lay dying from the random attack, Czapnik, 51, uttered his last words to the paramedics, according to police sources.

“Thank you,” he said.

That his very final act was an expression of gratitude to others is a powerful testament of a man who, as his mourners heard last week, cared deeply about others and about his community, police said.

The first police officers to arrive on the scene found the suspect restrained with Czapnik’s handcuffs, sitting in the back seat of his cruiser.

None of the paramedics were physically injured. But the incident is reviving debate whether paramedics should wear special protection.":
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/heroic+paramedics+describe+toll+const+eric+czapnik+murder+took+them/6308651/story.html

 

[FJAG]

I see the administrations campaign against sports teams taking a knee is getting even more serious.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/08/vice-president-mike-pence-leaves-colts-49ers-game-after-players-reportedly-kneel.html

Makes you wonder : If all it takes to get rid of Trump or Pence is taking a knee . . . ?  >

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

Makes you wonder : If all it takes to get rid of Trump or Pence is taking a knee . . . ?  >

How much did Mike Pence’s NFL stunt cost taxpayers?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22mike+pence%22+cost+taxpayers&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F8%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F8%2F2017&tbm=

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I own two SKS, one is bone stock and the other all Bubba’d up, a semi auto 12 ga, a mini 14, and a semi auto .22 for plinking. I have never pointed any semi auto at a human being, including myself, except in the service of my country. Do I need them? Nope. Do I enjoy using them? Silly question. Why do you feel that I shouldn’t be able to employ my rifles in a sane responsible manner?  Motorcycles today can reach or exceed 250 kmh, all vehicles can exceed the speed limit.  Why do we need them to have that capability? Speed kills, but manufacturers continue to provide the means to do so.

In your own example you define the problem- cars are made that can do 250km/h but that is speed is governed by speed limits since we as a society accept that there are some restrictions on our freedoms (in this case driving as fast as I want down hwy 1). Guns are no different and there's a difference between some sort of restriction and all out banning. For those who are pro-gun any compromise or limits are seen as complete bans. This is not the case. I grew up with guns on a farm and used them my whole life. However, I also see that there's a public safety issue in the US right now with mass shootings and can accept that no one needs to own an AR-15 for self defence or hunting. It's sport only (lets be honest). Therein, I can accept limitations on the number that can be owned, how they are transported, and how they are reported to authorities. We place limitations on almost everything. Heck, I can't go and take $10,000 out of the bank without needing a background check and providing a reason why I want my money.

 

[PuckChaser]

There were just as many firearm-related deaths (10.5 per 100k) in the United States in 2014, as motor vehicle deaths (10.6 per 100k). Drug poisoning (by just opioid and heroin) beats them both at 14.6 per 100k. Heroin is completely illegal but somehow is killing more people than guns. If banning firearms worked like banning heroin did, we'd see the firearm-related death rate RISE by almost 50%. There's also not a massive cry to make motor vehicles harder to obtain and place restrictions on their use, but they seem to kill more people every year than firearms do.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

 

[McG]

I own two SKS, one is bone stock and the other all Bubba’d up, a semi auto 12 ga, a mini 14, and a semi auto .22 for plinking. I have never pointed any semi auto at a human being, including myself, except in the service of my country. Do I need them? Nope. Do I enjoy using them? Silly question. Why do you feel that I shouldn’t be able to employ my rifles in a sane responsible manner?  Motorcycles today can reach or exceed 250 kmh, all vehicles can exceed the speed limit.  Why do we need them to have that capability? Speed kills, but manufacturers continue to provide the means to do so.

You have those weapons legally under Canadian law.  This thread is about the US.  Nobody is talking about doing anything to your guns.  But, your post does seem to suggest it is still possible for a law abiding citizen to own the firearms that they want to own even with greater control/regulation than exists in the US.

 

[mariomike]

There were just as many firearm-related deaths (10.5 per 100k) in the United States in 2014, as motor vehicle deaths (10.6 per 100k).

Motor vehicle fatalities have been dropping rapidly across North America in recent decades.
Unlike the old death traps back in the 1970's - before MADD and mandatory seat belt laws - the cars of today are equipped with air bags, laminated and tempered glass, crumple zones, side impact protection beams, collapsible steering columns and padded dashboards.  Convertibles lacked roll-over bars. Car fires are also much less common now, thanks to improved fuel system integrity and fire retardant materials.

In the city I live, most traffic fatalities are pedestrians.

Cars do indeed kill. But, they beat riding on the backs of animals. 

As far as shootings are concerned, by far, most of the shootings I was sent to were self-inflicted. Not always fatal.
That's anecdotal. The official statistics may vary.

That was here in Canada, but perhaps there is some similarity in the US?

 

[PuckChaser]

You have those weapons legally under Canadian law.  This thread is about the US.  Nobody is talking about doing anything to your guns.  But, your post does seem to suggest it is still possible for a law abiding citizen to own the firearms that they want to own even with greater control/regulation than exists in the US.

I wouldn't be so quick to superimpose the Canadian moral and ethical acceptance of some firearm regulations, or to even assume our system is perfect. A Canadian may tolerate our draconian firearm regulations, where an American may look at us as a communist state.

 

[mariomike]

Canada is not perfect. Never was. Never will be. But, I'm happy to live on this side of the border. 

 

[FJAG]

How much did Mike Pence’s NFL stunt cost taxpayers?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22mike+pence%22+cost+taxpayers&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F8%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F8%2F2017&tbm=

Nice picture - Al Jolson - a white guy in black face taking a knee and singing "Swanee". Hmmm.  >

:cheers:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

There were just as many firearm-related deaths (10.5 per 100k) in the United States in 2014, as motor vehicle deaths (10.6 per 100k). Drug poisoning (by just opioid and heroin) beats them both at 14.6 per 100k. Heroin is completely illegal but somehow is killing more people than guns. If banning firearms worked like banning heroin did, we'd see the firearm-related death rate RISE by almost 50%. There's also not a massive cry to make motor vehicles harder to obtain and place restrictions on their use, but they seem to kill more people every year than firearms do.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

+

There are a lot of red herring arguments here.

First, you should probably check that site again for the rates of drug deaths vs guns. From what I saw, "drug poisoning opioid analgesic deaths per 100,000 population" was 7.0 and heroin was 4.0. That's 11, not 14.6 (all overdoses is about 15). That is definitely too high and certainly indicates a problem. So, do you advocate the legalization of heroin under the assumption that legalization would lower this rate? If I take the argument the way its proposed, than I would have to assume that you agree legalization would lower deaths? What is the opportunity cost for society of de-criminalization of hard drugs? (ie- how many people would die if the drugs were legal vs illegal). Do you agree with drop in clinics for addicts, since really, in the same logic as gun lovers, they're just doing a hobby that they love? Discuss.

As for motor vehicles, there are a huge number of restrictions in place. There are speed limits, safety belts, driver's licence age requirements, yearly inspections in most US states, restrictions on distracted driving (cell phones in particular), regulations about wearing helmets (motorcycles) in the majority of states, restrictions on the use of alcohol and drugs, and a number of laws on the particular operations of the motor vehicle. Since the next argument back will be "but people still die in car accidents" I'll just jump to the logic trap- this is true. People still drink and drive, use cell phones, and cause other people to die. However, how do we rationalize the opportunity cost of removing all of the controls (see what I did there  )? How can we accurately predict how many people would die if all regulation was removed? Do you then also agree with removing regulations/controls on vehicles in the way you seemingly agree in guns since regulating vehicle operations doesn't seem to help (though it does... a lot).

If we use the same logic than one would have to question why there is still heavy security in airports and why is the US still in Afghanistan/the Middle East? Terrorist attacks of all varieties only killed 3503 Americans from 2001-2014 (compared to 440,095 gun deaths in the same period). Why is the US so willing to spend money and lives fighting against the 3503 and largely unwilling to do anything to curb gun violence? What would the money spent to combat the agents of the 3503 deaths don't if invested in the US for mental health initiatives? Why are Americans willing to have their civil liberties infringed upon (PATRIOT act, NSA, etc) to fight terrorism and why doesn't this desire translate to the far higher number of deaths due to guns (or opiods/heroin in your earlier example)? the average American has a 1:45,808 chance of dying by a terrorist attack but a 1:7945 chance of dying by an accidental gunshot. To add the the craziness, the average American has a 1:138,324,873 chance of being killed by an illegal immigrant terrorist. So, based on the odds, I assume that you dont support the Trump travel bans or screening refugees since you have far less chance of being killed by one?

 

[mariomike]

As for motor vehicles, there are a huge number of restrictions in place. There are speed limits, safety belts, driver's licence age requirements, yearly inspections in most US states, restrictions on distracted driving (cell phones in particular), regulations about wearing helmets (motorcycles) in the majority of states, restrictions on the use of alcohol and drugs, and a number of laws on the particular operations of the motor vehicle. Since the next argument back will be "but people still die in car accidents" I'll just jump to the logic trap- this is true. People still drink and drive, use cell phones, and cause other people to die. However, how do we rationalize the opportunity cost of removing all of the controls (see what I did there  )? How can we accurately predict how many people would die if all regulation was removed?

For those who study US highway fatality statistics,

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year