Slashdot Mirror
Taking Sense Away: Confessions of a Former TSA Screener
OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA gets discussed on Slashdot from time to time, usually negatively. Have you ever wondered about the TSA screeners' perspective? Taking Sense Away is a blog, allegedly written by a former TSA screener, offering insider perspectives on TSA topics. For example, there's the Insider's TSA Dictionary, whose entries are frequently about the code screeners use to discuss attractive female passengers (like 'Code Red,' 'Fanny Pack,' and 'Hotel Bravo'). Another posting explains what goes on in private screening rooms, which the author claims is nothing compared to screener conduct in backscatter image operator rooms. Apparently what happens in the IO room stays in the IO room. Today's posting covers how TSA employees feel about working for 'a despised agency'. For many the answer is that they hate working for 'the laughing stock of America's security apparatus,' try to hide that they work for TSA, and want to transfer almost anywhere else ASAP."
Hotel Bravo is a winner, and I'm keeping that one.
I'm pleased to hear that at least some of the people working for the TSA are ashamed. They should be.
One wonders what would happen if an ad-hoc, "name and shame" reputation network were to identify TSA agents everywhere they went. It's easy to imagine the near-universal environment of hate stares, extreme rudeness and occasional violence from victims of the TSA's Orwellian tactics putting direct pressure on TSA employees themselves to drastically reform their arrogant policies.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
for the TSA. It's the only job he's ever been able to hold down.
He's stupid and lazy, but at least he's arrogant. Almost killed my cousin, his wife, by convincing her that chiropractic should replace her insulin.
He's fiercely proud of the TSA.
This space available.
They're great against lions too. When is the last time you've heard of a lion attack at a terminal?
We're wasting over $8,000,000,000 per year on them when we could be spending it on other things. That's 42% of NASA's current budget. Add it up over 11 years, that's a boatload of cash.
Can we please be a bit rational and think of the children?
Please?
For as much as the technolibertarian parts of the geek community loves to rage against the TSA, they're not actually that unpopular with the general public. There's some good poll data on this.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Can we please be a bit rational and think of the children?
He is, he noted that the TSA is 42% of NASA's budget. With that kind of increased funding we could send the children into space!
After all, in space no-one can hear you scream.
I keep asking if this is so true then why does every nationality and US state that has stricter gun laws have a lower rate of gun death?
No one has ever answered me.
It's a correlation that is hard to get around, but as usual people on that side of the debate ignore the facts.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low. Even if you look at say, germany and the UK, who have much higher violent crime rates than the US, their murder rate is much lower.
There should be a TSA, it should try and prevent dangerous shit from getting on aircraft, trains, airports etc. It's not that there shouldn't be a TSA, it's that the TSA as implemented is unlikely to efficiently accomplish any of the broad goals it has.
You're right that stopping the occasional mass shooting is extremely hard. That's actually the wrong target for the US, the real target for the US should be handguns and work from there. Despite the occasional mass shooting the US averages about 40 murders a day, whereas the equivalent rate in the EU would be more like 10.
... America wakes up to the fact that measures like intrusive TSA screenings are all about keeping the ordinary American scared of "bad guys", and not about improving security tangibly. There are many countries around the world that don't have the equivalent of the "TSA", yet manage to get through year after year without a major incident. Americans, however, are not supposed to wake up, ever. That's what you get when a handful of ill intentioned lobbyists and gatekeepers control virtually the entire media, most large corporations, and a lot of the government decisions and lawmaking in a country.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
While I understand that people have to feed their families and need a job, the people working at the TSA employees get no sympathy from me. Yes, you have every right to hate your job and still do it. But if you are in a "service" industry (or more generally, where you interact with a large number of people), you shouldn't do a shitty job just because you hate it. Most TSA people seem to try the experience unpleasant for passengers. And with a myriad of changing rules, they don't seem to grasp that people will make mistakes. Even a slight deviation from routine gets you the "deluxe" treatment (like the woman carrying a bottle with breast milk being held up for hours).
Case in point - I got a belt that has an buckle that can be removed because I got tired of pulling my belt on and off each time I flew. And I have been through the all types of scanners without a problem in most airports. But one day a new type of scanner seems to have a problem with just the belt "blocking" the view. So rather than just make me remove the whole belt and pass through, they need to do a pat-down that takes much longer. BTW, what happens if my trousers fall down because I need to keep my hands on my head while being scanned? Do I need to register on some type of list somewhere?
No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low.
Right - because as we all know, correlation == causation.
That, or there's a whole fuck-ton of other factors you're discounting, because they don't mesh with your anti-gun agenda.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I believe it's a coping mechanism. See, people love power, but they hate responsibility. So life is mostly a game of musical chairs / random shuffling of the deck in the attempt to better your position -> does your new job have more power, and less responsibility? Then you win. Does it have less power and more responsibility? Then you lose.
By crying out to their government to 'make those things we don't like' illegal, they place the future responsibility for any failures firmly on their government's back. We all know that the government can't be everywhere, at all times, but that doesn't prevent some people for blaming it for not being so. So, in this case, the power to be f*cking idiots is retained by the people, while the responsibility for their actions is left to their government. A wonderful recipe full of fail.
Think of it as being a war between individual responsibility versus group responsibility. In the former, all power is retained by the individual, but also all responsibility. In the latter, well...how many people here have worked on group projects before? How many would do so again? The point being, in any group, some members will work harder, others will slack. The person representing the group may have more power than others, or less so; responsibility for group actions may be placed on the whole group, or just one person. Being in a group means, typically, giving up some of your power, but, as I pointed out earlier, can be considered a win if more responsibility is offloaded onto others than the power lost.
Of course, modern society, as you have seen, can be a little insane here. There are people out there, earning $7 / hour, on whom all the responsibility for a business is placed, while there are some earning $100,000 / hour, with no responsibility save getting dressed in the morning.
That and, for some odd reason, a fair portion of the human race seems completely unaware that inside each of them is a MacGuyver, that, when pressed into a corner, occasionally pops out to do 'uncertain' things. 'Tis easier to wash a cat than convince a creative human not to strike back at their aggressors, real or imagined.
I am John Hurt.
What does NASA use the other 58% of their budget on?
The reason people don't answer you is because it's a narrowly-focused leading question designed to produce only one possible rational response, when the rest of us know that in the real world, the issues are decidedly more complex than how you are seeing them.
Translation: you are part of the problem.
"TSA gets discussed on Slashdot from time to time, ALWAYS negatively..."
Ftfy. The TSA is always discussed negatively here -- and rightfully so. Take the entire body of evidence as to TSA's effectiveness and procedures, then toss in a million or so anecdotes about TSA's harassment & sheer stupidity, and no wonder they are so looked down on.
Yet another anecdote: in August, I was told I'd have to go through a backscatter or be patted down. I _politely_ said no, I'll opt for the patdown. The fifty-something TSA rent-a-cop (Keystone Kop?), in a half-assed attempt at condescension, "explained" to me that "this machine is not harmful, it uses millimeter wave technology that is the same technology in your cell phone -- it's just as safe as your cell phone." I resisted calling him a dumb fuck, and I _politely_ said that I'll opt for the patdown. He became aggressive and persisted with his bullshit reasoning, and I _politely_ said based on what I've read, I'll opt for the patdown. The dumb fuck yelled at me "WELL EVERYTHING YOU READ IS WRONG!" I know, I know, whilst in the presence of a TSA rent-a-cop I was wrong to say that I actually read. So there you have it, slashdotters, I have solid evidence that everything we've read --and I suppose written-- is WRONG. That fascist fuck will be head of TSA some day. And the patdown is a memory I will always cherish!
Guess who's avoiding airports and instead driving from CO to PA this holiday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others This is what the US is working to. I hope making tsa employees miserable will push things back the other way. We use to make fun of communists and their "show me your papers" paranoia.
I would say that is basic statistics.
Eg, the rate of vehicular related deaths among 3rd world, uncontacted jungle villages is amazingly low. It doesn't mean they are safer drivers, it means nobody drives, so nobody dies while driving.
It's like saying there is no disease, and no starvation on mars. Of course there isn't, nobody lives there. It doesn't mean mars is a utopian paradise.
Rather than looking myopically at "gun related deaths", you should look at overall "deaths by violent crime".
The percentage of those deaths via firearms is a function of availability. The rate of deaths overall by violent crimes is what you are really looking for.
But it doesn't sound as sensational when you say "sure, your chances of being killed in a violent crime are 3x higher, but your chances of being shot are nearly nonexistent!", instead of "almost nobody gets shot here!"
The question to ask is not "do less people get shot", the question to ask is "is there less overall violent crime?"
(This is especially important whe you consider that part of the ascribed deterrent effect [if it exists], is the implication that violent criminals will themselves be more likely to BE shot. As such, if said violent criminals *are* being shot, they will contribute to the "gun related deaths" statistic.)
[citation required] DC has gun laws but a high homicide rate. North Dakota has few laws but a low one. I know Mexico has strict laws that simply don't work.
The reasonable question I would ask is "What is the complete impact of stricter gun laws on crime." You then need to decide what mix of gun deaths, crime, cost, laws and civil liberties you want to go with. Just saying gun death rate reduction is the only acceptable goal is not a reasonable way to consider the whole question.
You've come up with a nonsensical straw man argument because you are retarded.
historically, the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution so that if the government was not taking care of the people they could rise up like the American Colonists did against the British.
The reason people don't answer you is because it's a narrowly-focused leading question designed to produce only one possible rational response, when the rest of us know that in the real world, the issues are decidedly more complex than how you are seeing them.
Translation: you are part of the problem.
Translation: FUCK YOU, I'm keeping my gun!
It's a correlation that is hard to get around, but as usual people on that side of the debate ignore the facts.
I suspect your correlation is weak, and correlation is not causation.
No sig today...
Right - because as we all know, correlation == causation. That, or there's a whole fuck-ton of other factors you're discounting, because they don't mesh with your anti-gun agenda.
Being that there is a 'fuck-ton' of other factors, please enumerate them and list your estimated correlation values that we can debate them in a proper fashion. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you simply have a pro-gun agenda and discount your statement as an opinion and disregard it.
Or, we can just go around accusing other posters as having an agenda here all day long without making any real progress in the discussion.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Do people really not understand that guns can be taken across city and state boundaries?
There is no border between a retarded state like Texas and a sane one like New York. Somebody can simply buy a gun in Texas (using the gun show loophole if necessary) and drive it to any other state.
That means that effectively the entire United States has the same gun laws as the most permissive state.
I mean.. are people really so fucking stupid that they don't understand this??
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, is that an almost complete prohibition of firearms and a very low murder rate are not mutually exclusive.
FTFY.
Or did Japan used to have a high murder rate until they took away the guns?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Maybe it's just that the people in states with high levels of general crime/gangs/drug culture are the ones demanding the right to own guns...it's not surprising there are more murders in those states.
correlation != causation
No sig today...
If god had meant for man to fly then he wouldn't have created the assholes in the TSA, the thieving baggage handlers, bogus chinese airplane parts and overbooking. I have no desire to ever travel more than 1000 miles from home and I can drive that far in a day. To hell with air travel. I hope they all crash and burn in desolate areas.
Japan also has a suicide rate 2-3x times higher than the US. It's a different culture, if you gave everyone in the US a katana I doubt we'd have a seppuku epidemic.
A big part of our high murder rate is the drug war. You can try and take away everything besides rocks and pointy sticks (and fail miserably) but the drug dealers will keep killing each other. Nothing besides complete legalization is going to end it.
if the government was not taking care of the people
Not exactly a "Founder Fathers"-compatible view of the role of government.
What is an anti-gun agenda. One that tries to reduce the number of guns, so that the government can become more totalitarian and control its population with the guns the military owns? Because I cannot see any other anti-gun agenda. He makes is pretty clear why he does not like guns, and there doesnt seem to be a hidden agenda.
Also, because his statement is false.
No but look at Switzerland. (They have loads of automatic weapons in civilian hands and no gun crime either).
I have no problem if the drug dealers want to kill each other. It's the collateral damage from their shootouts that is an issue.
Mod parent up. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Always be cautious when someone tries to get to a preconceived result by excluding data.
And keep in mind that the readily available firearms at the time were single-shot muzzleload rifles. I'd really be curious what the founders would think of the 2nd in the semi-auto hi-cap magazine world we live in today?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What does NASA use the other 58% of their budget on?
Hookers and Black Jack, or so I've heard.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Child molesting.
They're trying to perfect it for the TSA.
Well, not NO gun crime. but .5/100k population.
Whereas the US is 6/100k population.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And what are the chances that the TSA will now require current and future employees to sign a contract stating that they can never divulge the inner workings of the TSA? A transparent government organization such as the TSA will, of course, want to keep its stellar reputation intact.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
There should be a TSA, it should try and prevent dangerous shit from getting on aircraft, trains, airports etc.
OK, let's start with the most dangerous thing commonly brought onto a transportation system: cars. Yes, cars, they kill thousands of travelers each yeah. The automobile lobby likes to point out that plenty of responsible car drivers practice good car safety and don't go around killing people, but the rest of us know how dangerous cars are.
See, the best part about dangerous things is that nobody wants to lose the dangerous things they personally like to own, use, and play with. Like firearms. Like knives. Like the lithium ion battery in your laptop.
the TSA as implemented is unlikely to efficiently accomplish any of the broad goals it has.
The TSA is accomplishing its goals, just not the ones they make known to the public. The TSA is showing people who's boss, which was the only goal that ever mattered.
Palm trees and 8
Your argument is predicated on the notion that someone would travel from the great state of Texas to a retarded backwater like New York.
Enjoy your small sodas.
Carthago delenda est!
[citation required] DC has gun laws but a high homicide rate. North Dakota has few laws but a low one.
Or, same population size living in vastly different population densities.
D.C.: Population: 617,996, Area: 68.3 sq mi
North Dakota: Population: 683,932, Area: 70,703 sq mi
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I keep asking if this is so true then why does every nationality and US state that has stricter gun laws have a lower rate of gun death?
Hmm, have you looked up what "every" means? At least, you appear to be mis-using the word in your assertion.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
And blow....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What is an anti-gun agenda. One that tries to reduce the number of guns, so that the government can become more totalitarian and control its population with the guns the military owns? Because I cannot see any other anti-gun agenda. He makes is pretty clear why he does not like guns, and there doesnt seem to be a hidden agenda.
Whoever said it was hidden? Seems pretty blatant to me - GP says, essentially, "Japan has a low murder rate because guns are banned, so we should start banning (hand)guns." Also, GP makes a number of logical leaps, comparing apples to oranges, as if the US taking a Euro/Japanese approach to gun control will magically make serial killers disappear.
How could that not be construed as anti-gun?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Japan's criminal underworld is also almost exclusively controlled by the Yakuza, an organized crime syndicate that has an honour code and prefers not to dispute publicly. The homogenous population, level of integration with broader society, and even the relatively small geography of Japan plays to their advantage.
Might not be a good comparison.
That and, for some odd reason, a fair portion of the human race seems completely unaware that inside each of them is a MacGuyver, that, when pressed into a corner, occasionally pops out to do 'uncertain' things. 'Tis easier to wash a cat than convince a creative human not to strike back at their aggressors, real or imagined.
Aha, someone finally argued it (not that I read every possible post). Pistols are a weapon of convenience, and a fairly low collateral one at that. If those were not available, some would use bows, crossbows, throwing knives, shivs, multitools, or just a carefully thrown rock. However, they might also use chlorine gas, fuel air explosives, difficult to extinguish incendiaries, anthrax, or other weapons with even less precision.
Blaming an act on the tool chosen is laziness, and the one thing humans have gotten VERY good at over the centuries is learning what things can kill eachother quickly or brutally. Looking at my desk, I think a stickynote is the only thing that I can not determine how to use as a debilitating/deadly weapon, and that's probably a lapse in imagination more than a trait of the stickynote.
Yes, look at Switzerland. Where those weapons are in the hands of a well-regulated militia (sound familiar?) as a substitute for a standing army, whose members receive extensive training in weapon safety, and understand that those weapons are for national defense, not to kill whomever they find personally threatening.
One: it's a meaningless question. It's not the gun deaths that matter; it's the total deaths. If you reduce guns deaths by 2,000 but knife deaths rise by 2,000, you haven't gained anything.
Two: It's not true. Jamaica has much tougher gun control than the US. It also has a gun death rate almost five times the US's.
There's your answer.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low.
On the other hand, based on the evidence from Japan, prohibiting firearms will send the suicide rate skyrocketing. Because, you know, correlation equals causation.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Japan also has a mafia so powerful it has influence over the government, and while we were telling the English king to go fuck himself, they were living in feudal aristocracy that was utterly submissive and caste-ridden. Even for the supposedly macho samurai, it was considered a point of honor to die like a little bitch for your lord, and to fail him required suicide. They were also the only people allowed to carry weapons and they could and did murder peasants with impunity. (I guess when your lord could ass-rape you if he wanted, you tend to take it out on the little people. Come to think of it, the Spartans did the same kind of shit, and they were big on ass-rape too.)
So, does Japan not have a lot of murders because they lack guns, or do they lack murders (and guns) because they've always been a docile, subservient people, violent only when allowed to be in the service of their betters?
The founders believed that the citizenry had to be able to protect themselves against their own government. I don't think they would care whether that was done with stone axes and primitive bows and arrows are with x-ray lasers and particle beams. They would certainly believe that if the government had it the citizenry should be able to have it too.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Rather than looking myopically at "gun related deaths", you should look at overall "deaths by violent crime".
I'm sorry, but intelligence has no place in a debate about gun control.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
And keep in mind that the readily available firearms at the time were single-shot muzzleload rifles.
And keep in mind that muzzleloaders were the only firearms available to the government too. I will give up my assault rifle when the government gives up theirs.
An anti-gun agenda is an agenda to reduce the number of guns or eliminate them all together. I think that is rather obvious, isn't it?
Why do you think using the term agenda implies a conspiracy theory / government take over / hidden agendas?
agenda - noun: a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc
What exactly is this "gun show loophole"? I have gone to many gun shows, and I can tell you first hand that all dealers at gun shows will still require you to do a federal background check just like when you buy a gun at a store. Private citicens might be able to sell you a gun without a background check, but that can happen with or with out a gun show.
As a Texas resident, I can assure you that the opinion of what constitutes a "retarded" state is exactly the oposite here. It is most likely just a cultural difference, however when you compare the actual crime rates the differences are only a fraction of a percent between Texas and New York. This would seem to indicate that criminals will be criminals with or with out strict gun laws. I personal would rather have the ability to defend myself if I ever had the need.
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
As poplularized by Mark Twain, all I can think about when I hear this mindless drivel is, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."
There will be those who claim that eliminating all guns will bring Nirvana, then DEMAND facts from those who point out the BS in those assessments. Wow.
They'd probably think, "Fucking Awesome!"
It's not surprising that people living in an area with high crime would like to be able to legally defend themselves. Gangs and drug dealers don't care if it's legal or not.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Undercover video of a gun show purchase without a background check
It would seem that you would rather ignore the gun show loophole than do anything to close it.
And I can assure you that no matter how smart Texans think they are, our schools (yes I live in Texas) rank 48th in the country, and Texans really aren't all that bright.
Arrogant, yes. But your average Texan isn't half as smart as he thinks he is.
The reasonable question I would ask is "What is the complete impact of stricter gun laws on crime."
Glad to oblige! Here's a scientific study done by the Australian government to determine the result of the crackdown on firearms possession post-Port Arthur massacre. It's got numbers in it, and the statistical determination is all well laid out for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
But their killing each other only inflates the "death by gun" statistics making it look like the major cities have some sort of major gun problem when it's really just a tool used by people looking to hurt their competition or destitute customer.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
That quote by Rahm Emanuel will go down in infamy. It's probably the most brutally honest thing I've ever heard a politician say. And it's exactly why the TSA exists. Post 9/11 much of the American people were in a state of fear - fear stoked by the US government and the media. They WANT you to be afraid so that they can create agencies like the TSA. The TSA is not about guarding against "terrorism" - it's about gaining further control over the American people. Just like the Patriot Act.
Have you ever taken a good look at any of those TSA agents? I mean really taken a look at them? The one's I've seen have this glazed over look that only Federal Government employees seem to possess. That emotionless, heartless, I-don't-give-a-shit, 1,000 mile stare. Want a local version? Try your DMV office. I'm sure you can find plenty there as well. Must be a training ground for TSA drones.
I suspect that very few people actually want to work for the TSA. Some of them probably think I'll just do this for a while and then I'll get a real job. But they get sucked in and before you know it you've got the 1,000 mile stare too. Getting out of public sector was the best move I ever made.
This is a fucking retarded argument.
Please...rise up against the government. I dares ya.
Your converted .223 to full-auto will hold you out against the US Military for...wait, who the fuck are we kidding? You'd be dead before you saw someone to shoot at.
Realistically, if someone wants you dead....actually dead...its the same thing. One legally-purchased .50 sniper rifle and you're a corpse before you even hear the report of the weapon. Shit, I bust your window, set off your alarm, and wait crouched in the window till I see you. One shot, blam, you're dead without ever laying eyes on your attacker.
Its as much security theatre as the TSA.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
OK, I realize this is a slippery slope argument I'm making, but really?
I should have nukes then. The government does! Grenades, flame throwers, unmanned drones, full-auto weapons. Your argument poses no restriction other than "If the government has it, so should I".
And people think I'm crazy.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Well, there's logical thinking and historical precedent to indicate pragmatic gun control laws will make a world of difference. Since Columbine in 1999 here in the U.S. we've had over 60 mass shootings (leaving out the countless individual ones). In Australia there was mass shooting in 1996 resulting in the death of 35 people. Public outcry helped push legislation for stricter gun control laws, and there has not been a single mass shooting incident there since then. Here in America the NRA and it's massively powerful gun lobby have made our alleged 'public servants' in Washington their bitches.
This blog is well written and funny. I've been laughing at my desk for a good 15 minutes now, I plan to finish this thing off before I head home.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
According to wikipedia, the rate of homicide in the US is 4.2/100k people and the rate of gun related homicide is 3.7/100k people. Therefor, 89%ish of US homicides are gun related homicides.
Contrast this with the UK, which has 1.2/100k homicides and 0.04/100k gun related homicides, or 3.3% of homicides are gun related.
Another way to look at this would be to consider the guns per gun related homicide numbers. In the US, there are approximated 89k guns per 100k people, giving a guns per gun-homicide ratio of 24k guns per gun-homicide. Serbia, the #2 country for guns per capita has approximately 58k guns per 100k people, giving them a guns per gun-homicide rate of 93k guns per gun-homicide.
Clearly, in the states we're all about shooting each other, even in comparison to other nations with (roughly, since no one can claim truly similar) similar rates of gun ownership. Put another way, in the US, we have more gun related homicides per capita (by a factor of 4 almost) than most developed countries have in TOTAL homicides.
Full disclosure: I fully suspect that if guns were outlawed here in the US, we would see an alarming rise in knife related crime. I personally think that everyone here is so willing to kill each other because we have so little vacation time. Damned Protestant work ethic!
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
I simply refuse to travel by airplane anymore...perhaps if more people did the same, the 'bean-counters' might wake the hell up and realise they're spoiling it for everyone.
I realise that this is not an option for many people but for enough people, it is. Let them suffer the consequences of their own actions. I mean, that's how we teach kids to behave isn't it? And these idiot accountants who seem to have no appreciation of what it's like to be human are nothing but children in adult-suits.
"Despite the occasional mass shooting the US averages about 40 murders a day, whereas the equivalent rate in the EU would be more like 10" ? Equivalent rate? If you want equivalent use percentages. Just read an article talking about how the US should adopt Candian style gun laws because they have 1/6th the gun crimes... failed to mention they have 1/10th the population so per capita they have more gun crime...
Fidel Castro overthrew Batista with only a small group of armed men. They were able to accomplish that because there were mass defections from the pro-Batista military.
I have no doubt that a sufficiently well prepared group could overthrow the US government. People have this idea that you need F-16s and bombers. You don't. The US government is unlikely to drop bombs on its own cities and towns or even drive tanks through the city streets. Most of the combat would be guys with rifles against guys with rifles. Whoever had more guys with guns would probably win.
But all of this is beside the point. Overthrowing the government was not the only reason the Founders wanted a well-armed citizenry or citizen-soldiers like the MInutemen. It is to defend ourselves and preserve our freedom for any reason at all. It might be a government that has gone full-1984 or it might be a particular branch of the government enforcing some new law. It could be some circumstance that neither of us could even imagine at the moment. The details don't matter because the principle is the same. Self-defense with whatever the standard weapons are at the time is a basic human right. Only a government afraid of its own citizens would try to deny that right.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Honestly, according to the statistics if we could just stop black males (and somewhat hispanic males, black females, and white males) from getting murdered so much then we'd be pretty close to first world European country homicide rates.
We still wouldn't touch them on firearm-related homicides but that would look somewhat better.
Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
No other country has to deal with such a mix of cultures as the USA does. Comparing us with Japan is not useful.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The question to ask is not "do less people get shot", the question to ask is "is there less overall violent crime?"
No, the question to ask is "do fewer people get shot".
Even in England where gun control is massive and they do have decreased gun violence.
They also found a way to bring up violent crimes as a whole to 4 times that of the US.
So I am guessing that thugs with baseball bats feel safer beating me out of my cash if they know I am not armed.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
How many people here deriding the TSA as security theater are, at the same time, screaming for more "gun control" in America because of the recent school shooting?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Perhaps it should have been phrased as, "Any weapon the government would use on its own civilians, I should, as a civilian, be able to use that weapon in my own defense."
Hence, nukes, chemical, and biological weapons are out, but grenades, full-auto weapons, and pretty much all small arms that don't wipe out thousands with a single deployment are fair game.
Whoever said it was hidden?
I thought it was implied in your sentence. And I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I only meant that he does not have a hidden agenda.
Hey, guess, what, gun control laws like Japan's are completely impossible in the USA. I'm pretty sure there are more guns than people in the US, and with our military-industrial complex the way it is, ammo's always going to be cheap and plentiful.
Your average Texan thinks that he is at least 4 times smarter than everyone else. So, even if we are only half as smart as we think we are, we are still twice as smart as everyone else. ;)
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
Enjoy your small penis, and the guns you use to compensate...
You know, I find it interesting who always starts the penis measurement contests...
Who is John Galt?
> Your converted .223 to full-auto will hold you out against the US Military for...wait, who the fuck are we kidding? You'd be dead before you saw someone to shoot at.
Hey, guess what, the US military seems to be having a bit of trouble with a bunch of Afghans with similar-size guns. Every time we fuck up a guerilla war, that strengthens the case for private ownership of AR-15s and AK-47 clones.
Jamaica has also a significant drug gang problem. Are we really at the point where we're gloating that we're better than some third-world nation? Lame.
Finally, the assumption is that knife deaths will not fully replace gun deaths, because it is harder to kill big masses of people with a single knife. So far, data bears out that assumption.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
correlation does not imply causation.
!= means they would never be the same, and they can be.
Unless you can think of something that causes something and has no correlation to it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, that doesn't address the issue. That report only shows "firearm deaths" - we are looking at crime, which is a larger set than "firearm deaths".
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
This entire thread is a beautiful example of missing the point. We went through metal detectors and had our baggage searched before 9/11. Why? because people carried guns onto planes and planted bombs in luggage. The airlines were responsible for screening and did an ineffective job of it.
After 9/11 the TSA was created and assume that responsibility. Why? because people took box cutters on planes and plated bombs in the luggage.
The people you need to be angry at are the people who scheme to hijack planes and/or blow them up.
Regards, Chris
Well that is in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. For a long time people had cannons on par with government ones. Once the cannons became obsolete they were mostly de-weaponized and installed as sculpture in parks and on courthouse lawns. As for the relevant issue: privately owned nukes? I don't know about that one but--
Grenades are legal with an appropriate explosive license and associated (lots of)paperwork. Artillery shells are in the same category.
Flame throwers are entirely unregulated and are used by farmers to clear brush every fall.
Hobbyists do have unmanned drones. Though there is a threat that these may be only allowed to LEO soon.
Fully automatic weapons are legal, again with the appropriate license and paperwork. With similar forms, you can get a silencer too.
I would not be the slightest bit surprised if there is a form in the bottom of a filing cabinet somewhere being protected by a leopard that allows you to get a license to buy a nuclear warhead. Then it would only be a matter of finding and affording one....
Its also important to extrapolate out the number of gun related homocides that can't be (grossly) lumped in with "self defense" (this is not an endorsement, btw) situations.
Eg, crook with crowbar breaks into house, homeowner shoots and kills him. The crook is a gun related homocide statistic.
If overall violent crime is high, and firearm ownership is high, barring a social taboo, the number of persons being shot will also be comparably high. (If for no other reason, violent criminals are being shot.)
If anything, the guns per homocide value having such a wide spread is fairly indicative that gun ownership/availability is not the primary controlling variable.
Not saying the USA and our criminal statistics are in any way "a good thing", just that gun ownership and availability is only a contributing factor to the larger problem, which is overall greater criminality.
Eg, "sensible people" + guns == only slight change in shootings.
"Violent criminally minded people" (like americans) + guns == exagerated change in shootings.
Curbing violent behaviors would be the primary variable to influence for the greatest reduction in homocides, including gun related.
Just travelled by plane two days ago. I left one piece of electronics in my suitcase, a web camera that was supposed to be a Christmas gift. Only item item didn't make it to my destination, though the manual and drivers did. And the only way anybody would be able to target a single device is if they x-rayed the bag. Last time I left electronics in a bad, two cameras, both were stolen, despite one being wrapped in socks.
I don't trust the TSA. I carry everything of any value in carry-on. This has happened on multiple airlines, with hidden items. Only electronics are taken, but all of the electronics don't make it. If this was a general theft ring, I'd lose other items of value. I'm assuming that, being identifiable by scanners, the electronic items are easily found. Either the TSA is stealing items during scanning, or there's a massive amount of theft by baggage handlers who are searching every case for electronics. Most likely it's the TSA. And i'm sick of them stealing my stuff.
No but look at Switzerland. (They have loads of automatic weapons in civilian hands and no gun crime either).
Technically those guns aren't in civilian hands. Switzerland has mandatory military service (Similar to the reserves in the US but not opt-in) and those weapons are military issue.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, is that an almost complete prohibition of firearms and a very low murder rate are not mutually exclusive.
FTFY.
Or did Japan used to have a high murder rate until they took away the guns?
In Japan, their "2nd Amendment" would be about swords. These were prohibited around 150 years ago.
Millimeter wave does not use ionizing radiation and therefore does not increase your risk of cancer. The energy per photon is lower than the visible light photons emitted from your monitor. Assuming he wasn't lying about what type of machine it was, the only reason to opt out of mm wave is because of privacy.
:(){
Um, you know you got nothing, right?
United Kingdom
Violent crime rates in the UK
Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime.
The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
you got nothing. But hey, any lie to back your gun stance is ok. Twit.
Their category is broader. With all the industrialized countries that enforce strict gun controls, that's the best you can do?
Look at all the other stricter nations, and they to have less violent crime and homicides.
all of them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The frequency of mass murders is so low that they don't even affect a significant digit in the totals. Is your goal to stop mass murders or to stop violent deaths?
Rate of murder (gun or not), rape, and so forth are lower in germany than in the USA. Depending on how you count it the youth violence is higher or lower.
Of course New York has more retarded people, they don't kill them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Whoever said it was hidden?
I thought it was implied in your sentence.
I try to be as straightforward as I can be to avoid having that happen, but here in InternetLand people do tend to imply things they don't directly state, so I can understand why you might think that.
And I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I only meant that he does not have a hidden agenda.
Fair enough; I saw it as rather overt.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I like that in order to prove how smart you are you did that wrong; Which part of "isn't" do Texans not understand?
Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Jamaica has also a significant drug gang problem.
And the US doesn't?
I'm not saying that stronger gun laws won't lower gun deaths.
But I suspect that the gun death rate in both Jamaica and the US is driven more by drug gangs than by anything else, including horrific incidents like the one that just happened.
That wsa a reasonable question 40 years ago. Now we can look at the last 40 years of countries tightening up on gun control.
The countries that did that have fewer homicides, crime, and gun deaths.
It's a question that's been answered. Of course it's in the NRA's best interest to keep pretending to ask that question, and saying they will come to the table and all the other misdirection they do until people start to forget the mass deaths.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
wrong. They couldn't afford a standing army, so they used a militia. That's why, and it's pretty clear in the documentations of their discussions on the topic.
It's EVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION that's why. oh..but the NRA ignores the inconvenient half of that sentence.
You idea was completely made up years later.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"group could overthrow the US government."
no, they couldn't. You don't understand how are government work, you don't understand why Batista was 'easily' over thrown at all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If by "ignore the loophole" you mean recognize the fact that more legislation isn't going to prevent people from breaking current legislation, then yes. Basing your argument around a single undercover video would be like trying to claim that all community organizations are fraud-based purveyors of hooker lodging and communism based on the ACORN "sting".
Have you ever been to a gun show? I've been to many. I have bought at them before, and I can tell you that I had to have a background check every time, even though I held a concealed carry permit in the state. One vendor wouldn't sell me an AR-15 with the previously banned features because I didn't have a voter card or passport to prove I was a citizen (this, again, despite the fact that my family has been in the country since the 1600s and I am whiter than Mitt Romney). That was in 2007.
Requiring private individuals to do background checks on each other prior to private sale is going to be impossible to enforce without creating a national registry of ownership, requiring notifying the ATF whenever you make a sale/transfer, etc. I can tell you right now that shit isn't going to pass the house, even though it is likely what Biden's "task force" will come up with.
However, I am straying from the point: that FFL dealers at gun shows are already legally required to do background checks. If one individual didn't do it, then that one individual is a criminal. It doesn't expose a "vulnerability" or a "loophole", it just identifies a criminal.
Looking from the outside, the word dispair seems to be appropriate. USA seems a reasonable place to live if you can make a success of your life. If you can't ... well it seems to be the harshest first world country to live in.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Me being oddly pedantic... The katana is the long sword, too long to commit seppuku easily. The wakizashi is the (usually) smaller, backup blade that can be used for seppuku (among other things).
Related - the movie Harakari is awesome. It was also recently remade.
Back to your original idea - there is no one thing. Arguing that "it's not X, look at country Somewhere-ia which also has X" doesn't solve that There are many things that fold in. The issue is easy access to guns AND a culture that tolerates violence AND (related to that) a culture that glorifies violence AND a weak social safety net that makes violence as a means to get money a real option for a subset of people AND a bad mental health program that either criminalizes mental health issues or forces them underground AND...
Well, I could add on a few more, but you get the picture. There is no one answer. This is a long hard slog. We have to push on many fronts. Saying "well, doing X won't solve the problem" is true. Because we have to do Y, Z, .... But it may be a start.
No, his argument is predicated on the notion that someone from Pennsylvania (few gun laws) would travel to Philadelphia, (strict laws), DC, or New York City.
This happens frequently.
Just take a look at St. Louis. It has the highest violent crime rates per capita in the country and some of the loosest gun laws.
1) True, but that wouldn't happen.
2) Jamaica has much tougher gun control than the US.
no it doesn't. In some respects its 'slightly' tougher, maybe. However it isn't enforced very well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"the assumption is that knife deaths will not fully replace gun deaths"
Except on Q'onoS. I hear a thousand people a night get killed by one running Klingon~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
or vagina.
Your ad here.
Knife deaths?! Hahahahaha! Stabbing or slashing takes a lot of work. You don't have the range or stopping power of a handgun. You'd be very lucky to injury someone through a barricade or another person. Will knife attacks happen? Oh, sure, but any such attacker would be better off run down a crowd in a car or truck. Look at the recent attack in China: 22 kids "slashed". Slashed, not killed. So, yeah, not having guns would reduce fatality rates.
So maybe they would prefer a standing army then. I'm up for that. We could have a 100% legal group of trained soldiers with a large cache of modern weapons solely for the purpose of fighting against our own government. I guess maybe the founders thought that idea was a bit impractical and had to settle for just a militia.
The right to defend yourself is a human right. I believe those crazy Founders actually believed we had such things. How naive they were. Rights. Hahaha. It appears that the only rights these days are those of the government itself to trample its citizens and treat them as slaves to do its bidding.
Also, according to the ninth amendment the government wouldn't have any right to take weapons from its citizens anyway. That's a right that the constitution never granted them. They didn't feel it necessary to say that people had the right to own weapons. Just like they didn't feel it necessary to actually say that people had the right to move about freely without having to show papers or be humiliated, strip searched, interrogated, and even sexually violated. They thought it would be easier to just enumerate the few things the government was allowed to do instead. The government was the entity being limited. Not the people. Somehow that turned into the government being the only one with rights to do pretty much anything it wants with just a few little limitations all of which are easily ignored whenever the government finds it convenient.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Japan is just one example of lower deaths and no guns..
Every other 1st world nation that enforce strict gun control laws has lower gun deaths and violent crime then the US.
" gun control will magically make serial killers disappear."
It isn't magic when you have all the data we have. It's counter intuitive, but that's different.
And if the best you can do is 'serial killer' as you comparison, then you got nothing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"A big part of our high murder rate is the drug war"
Unless you are in Mexico or Jamaica, that's not really true. not at all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think this should be a fight fire with fire type thing. You can not fight a tyrannical government who has full auto high capacity weapons with your single shot pea shooter. The second amendment is not for hunting or just home protection after all.
But their stupidity does not weaken the strength of their vote at all.
And they outnumber you. Significantly.
Once agail someone who has no clue brings up cars.
If you must use that comparison, then you need to normalize it. Look an how much time is spent in a car, total. How many miles driven, total.
30,000 deaths per 3000 Billion miles driven.
30,000 per 500 million hours spent commuting?
Are those bad statistics? seems low when you look at how many people are in cars all the time.
Not to imply we shouldn't work to make it safer. interesting note: car fatalities has been declining for decades, even during this media storm about texting and phone sand driving. Number keep going down.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How about Canada then?
Canada has the exact same violet video games, tv shows and culture as the USA (for anyone who wants to include that strawman). It has about the same mix of people as the USA, stricter gun laws, and less violent deaths/gun related deaths.
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Of course it is. Also, you perception of Japan is probably wrong.
However it is another data point. And if you look at every 1st world nation that enforces strict gun laws, the stricter the less crime. It's not hard to find that out, just inconvenient.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No state has looser gun laws than Wyoming or Alaska. In Wyoming (and I think Alaska too) you don't even need a license. So let's compare the amount of violent crime in Cheyenne or Laramie or Juneau or Fairbanks with St. Louis. Or we might compare the rates of violent crime in New York City with that of Cheyenne. I don't think any state has tougher gun laws than New York and yet somehow I don't feel safe walking in certain parts at night. I suppose you would feel 100% safe walking around in even the worst areas of New York because their gun control laws are so strict, right?
A friend of mine did get attacked and hurt while walking in New York during the day. It wasn't even that bad of an area. And they were armed. Very well armed. Do you know who those violent thugs were? The NYPD. And, no, he wasn't breaking any laws or doing anything wrong. They didn't even apologize to him.
I don't know about you, but I would feel much safer walking around in the poorest parts of Cheyenne at 3 AM than New York. Even though pretty much anyone is allowed to carry a firearm. Massachusetts and Connecticut are also known for having tough gun control. That doesn't make me feel any safer walking around certain parts of Boston or New Haven. Especially since I would not be allowed to carry a gun in either state.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
What is an anti-gun agenda. One that tries to reduce the number of guns, so that the government can become more totalitarian and control its population with the guns the military owns? Because I cannot see any other anti-gun agenda. He makes is pretty clear why he does not like guns, and there doesnt seem to be a hidden agenda.
The mere fact that there is a TSA as we know it tells me that the government doesn't need to control its population with the guns the military owns.
They get by on fear alone. "If you don't give up your freedoms, the terrorists will eat you!"
It doesn't matter how many guns you own. Or nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers for that matter. If you insist on living as a slave, you're a slave.
Most murders happen at close range. Knife attacks in Chinese schools kill 20 children per year. I'll agree that a gun ban reduces absolute death toll, but at what price of freedom? Without a gun you are nothing, might as well be dead.
Canada has the exact same violet video games, tv shows and culture as the USA (for anyone who wants to include that strawman). It has about the same mix of people as the USA, stricter gun laws, and less violent deaths/gun related deaths.
Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Comparison to Canada was his entire premise. At the time Canada was not particularly more gun-restrictive than the USA, and similar levels of firearm ownership and loads less gun deaths per capita. Moore's conclusion was that the problem was not guns per se, it was fear. That the news in america was much more fear-centric (if it bleeds, it leads) which makes people much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And blow....
That's actually for the hookers, too. It's called a "cock bump."
Because encountering a terrorist is about as likely as winning the lottery, while encountering someone who shouldn't, but does have a gun is an almost daily occurrence?
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
That wsa[sic] a reasonable question 40 years ago. Now we can look at the last 40 years of countries tightening up on gun control. The countries that did that have fewer homicides, crime, and gun deaths.
Can you please support this with some numbers? I've seen the UK numbers which are muddled at best with most attempts to do a before-and-after comparison showing fewer crimes with guns but higher overall violent crime rates including murder but excluding suicide. What countries are you thinking of and what studies?
Maybe one actually is effective and the other is not?
In any case, I think the better question is this: why do a select few people who deride the TSA because it infringes upon our freedoms advocate for gun control (which trades freedom for safety, much like the TSA)? Would they still hate the TSA if it was effective?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You do realize that in Wyoming and Alaska you can pretty much shoot at anything and not hit a person? That said, the vast majority of violent deaths in Alaska are caused by drunk drivers. The second highest category of violent crime is due to drug dealing. And sexual assault is right up there as well. Not many gun related crimes, just a lot of drunken assholes.
So, if you ban alcohol, legalize other drugs and give women guns, we should live in Paradise!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So twice as many people are murdered by something other than a gun in the UK as in the US. What a bunch of stabby fucks!
The fact that I'm of the opinion that the general public should not have access to assault rifles does not mean I have an anti gun agenda. Putting a simple rule in the constitution was not a stroke of genius, it has stopped Americans from thinking about guns in the same way religious commandments have stop worshipers thinking about morals. The stand out gun problem in the US is the number of massacres by nuts with a semi-autos, here in Australia we fixed that problem by banning semi-auto's. We still have nuts and we still have guns but it's a lot more difficult to go "human hunting" with a bolt action rifle or a double barrel shotgun, so difficult nobody has managed to do it since the laws were introduced almost 20yrs ago.
I suspect the US are going to ban assault rifles and large magazines due to the latest random massacre, but it will do jack shit if the government "grandfathers" existing assault weapons and allows them to stay in private hands, which I'm sure they will do because no US government would have the balls to institute a compulsory buy back. This is because you guys have stopped thinking, you see the choice as guns/no-guns, few people stop to ask if there is a reasonable middle ground that may eliminate or at least drastically reduce the chances of similar massacres. Sure compared to the big picture of violence the number of people killed in those events is miniscule, but as the American people have shown this week, such events are far from insignificant.
The first duty of government is to maintain public order (keeping the peace), it does this mainly through the rule of law. Setting gun laws at the right level is definitely part of that duty. Few people would think it reasonable for a seven year old to carry an uzi at school for self defense. If you dig deep enough virtually all people have a "do not cross" line in relation to the private ownership of weapons. Instead of parroting a constitution (written with an ink pot in the days of muskets) that says anybody can have any weapon they should realise they themselves have a "do not cross" line and perhaps rethink why they draw the line where they do.
Even if you go along with the idea that "self defense" is a legitimate reason to own a gun (and most Europeans and Aussies don't), assault weapons are not even designed for self defense, they are called "assault" weapons for a reason. If people really do want to target shoot with machine guns and rocket launchers then why not allow military amusement parks. The weapons never leave the park and are stored with military style respect and security, you pay you dime, blow some shit up and go home. I believe such places already exist and don't cause any newsworthy problems.
Disclaimer: Just to preempt any remaining teabaggers out there, it was the conservative government of John Howard that instituted the semi-auto ban here in Australia. The dogma that gun control ( and universal health care) are "left wing ideas" is just another contradictory self delusion of the American right wing.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?
"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.
"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I was working for the state Attorney General's office. On one occasion, we government types got to go down to the SEARCH conference in D.C. Now we were all issued photo ID's that lived right next to our state ID's.
So when we arrived en masse at the check-in and produced ID the drone got panicky. It was too funny. Just because we were on the inner fringe of LEO they freaked.
And even then the use of those guns in domestic violence is still quite high. Assault weapons are designed for attacking large numbers of adversaries in a war like setting, not for shooting Moose from a helicopter, the Swiss culture understands that but they still have some problems with defective units. It interesting that prior to about 1990 the NRA was all about safety and training for sports shooters, nowadays they are just a mouthpiece for the small arms industry.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Amtrak can actually be fun. When is the last time you had steak and an observation car on an airplane?
I'd rather have the speed and the ability to reach small cities, but not at the cost of being treated like a convict, or of giving my consent to citizens being treated like convicts.
Actually I made reference to the UK and germany because even though they have much higher violent crime rates, they have lower murder rates. The UK murders per violent crime rate is 1/16th the US rate. If the US has the same murders per violent crime rate as the UK it would have only marginally more murders than japan. The US by the way does not have a particularly low violent crime rate. The UK in particular, and German generally have very high violent crime rates. Admittedly, some of that is football hooliganism, but that doesn't account for a factor of 4 difference alone.
Getting rid of guns isn't going to get rid of violent crime. Getting rid of guns (which is a process that will take decades even if started tomorrow) is going to reduce the rate of murder, and in particular the murders per violent crime.
What evidence is there that the EU and Japan have less people who would be serial killers if given the chance?
Citations. You're making an assumption that some particular set of statistics was accurate and truthful.
How are things going in Mexico? Let me help you with that question: http://www.borderlandbeat.com/
Mexico's "war on drugs" has a death toll that exceeds the United States' death toll in Viet Nam. Thank God that weapons are illegal in Mexico. If they actually had access to weapons, the death toll would be much higher, right?
I would laugh at you, if your kind of ignorance weren't so deadly.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
> unlikely to drop bombs on its own cities and towns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_blair_mountain
Or did Japan used to have a high murder rate until they took away the guns?
They, along with the UK and Japan, prohibited guns many decades ago. In the case of the UK and germany you're going back 50-100 years, in the case of Japan you're going back to the Boshin war 150 years ago.
There have been incremental gun control changes since then, but they are, on the whole minor adjustments to what is basically a prohibition of personal handguns and guns in general. The problem there becomes one of 'if you reduce the murder rate from 0.5 to 0.4 you've made a 20% reduction, but compared to the US at between 8 and 4 it's hard to see that difference'.
There is almost certainly a lag effect on banning guns and seeing the effect too. When europe and japan did it guns were a lot less reliable than they are now. Even a ban tomorrow on guns and you'd still be seeing murders from guns made today in the 2050's likely.
Switzerlands statistic is misleading. They don't have an army, they have a citizen militia, so all of their army guns (which are regularly inspected) are considered 'private', unlike every other country.
My lingering suspicion is that looking at the 'loose' guns per capita is the right statistic. Eliminate (from the data) all of the guns for the army, collectors, farmers, etc. etc. etc. All of the places that are well regulated in lots of places, and you'd see the effect of 'loose' guns on crime. But of course, things like police that don't do their job is a major factor in a lot of places too.
... I know Mexico has strict laws that simply don't work.
Do I have to remind you that the so-called "Fast & Furious" ATF gunwalking scandal provided a lot of guns to Mexicans???? Mexico may have strict gun laws, but thanks to USA ATF those laws don't work!
Imagine if traffic cops were allowed to write the traffic laws.
That's where we are with the TSA. We need to separate threat assessment from implementation, or else the people who want to build their budgets and bureaucratic empires will "identify" hijacking dangers from nutrias and demand $250K each to buy magic anti-nutria rocks from companies that pay them "consulting" fees.
but the rest of us know how dangerous cars are.
And in our lifetime we will see a dramatic reduction in car deaths as we see self driving cars, and every vehicle having a mandatory ignition Breathalyzer lock.
It's not like this isn't a problem people are working on as well.
And by the way, there *is* a body responsible for finding what is wrong with cars, and getting it fixed, as with aircraft.
I just think it's awesome that Bruce Schneier got a nod in the TSA dictionary:
Bruce Schneiered: (V, ints) When a passenger uses logic in order to confound and perplex an officer into submission. Ex: “A TSA officer took my Swiss army knife, but let my scissors go. I then asked him wouldn’t it be more dangerous if I were to make my scissors into two blades, or to go into the bathroom on the secure side and sharpen my grandmother’s walking stick with one of the scissor blades into a terror spear. Then after I pointed out that all of our bodies contain a lot more than 3.4 ounces of liquids, the TSA guy got all pissed and asked me if I wanted to fly today. I totally Schneirered his ass.”
US murder rate is 4.2. The western european average is about 1.0. Canada 1.6. All stats/100k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Southern europe, northern europe (rejecting the baltics) ~1.5-2.
(note: Lichenstein, luxembourg and monaco are bad data point, the first and last are 'countries' of 35k people, and 2010 was a particularly bad murder rate for luxembourg with 12, their 6 year average previous was 5.5).
Hence I threw in Germany and the UK in there. The US is 20% german, 18% british by descent, and both of those countries have since become quite ethnically diverse.
And part of my point was that those countries, despite having much higher violent crime rates still have much lower murder rates.
I guess they don't teach logic in Texan schools.
The quote:
"But your average Texan isn't half as smart as he thinks he is."
Corresponds to the equation:
0.5 * IQSelfEstimated != IQActual
What you said
"So, even if we are only half as smart as we think we are..."
0.5 * IQSelfEstimated == IQActual
Of course the original speaker meant (to avoid the possibility that they're smarter than they think they are):
"But your average Texan isn't even half as smart as he thinks he is"
which yields
0.5 * IQSelfEstimated > IQActual
And that still doesn't work as a comparison to everyone else to show Texans are less intelligent than the average non-Texan. But none of this should be surprising given that we're talking about what some Texans said.
Not the IQ is a reliable measure of general intelligence, but you get the picture. Unless you're a Texan.
I keep asking if this is so true then why does every nationality and US state that has stricter gun laws have a lower rate of gun death?
States that claim the privilege of killing their own errant citizens are correlated* with higher murder rates than those that do not. Considering (as I do) that state executions and gun control legislation are both authoritarian policies, I now wonder if it's possible that authoritarianism is objectively bad for society, rather than just something I vehemently oppose.
* My own examination was years ago, and I no longer have that spreadsheet, but this brief look is consistent with my prior conclusion.
If anyone has properly sourced data showing the aforementioned gun law/crime relationship, I'd appreciate a citation. If not, I'll post one if/when I get around to it.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
"Self-defense with whatever the standard weapons are at the time is a basic human right"
I guess we better start building more nukes and handing them out. One for each person on earth!
No other country has to deal with such a mix of cultures as the USA does.
Please travel, or at least watch some travel documentaries. Europe has always been far more culturally diverse than the US, (well...at least since European settlement)., the US culture is a "spin off" from Europe that has evolved over time. Any large land mass will have diverse cultures within it's boundaries. Most mainland Europeans know at least two languages. When Gandhi was kicking up a fuss, there were over 800 native languages in use in India alone. Even China which has retained the same overall system of bureaucracy for 2000yrs has a diverse mix of local cultures wrapped within the state sanctioned one, there are still at least two major versions of the Chinese language in common use today.
Ignoring the native cultures that existed in nations such as the US and Australia (where I live), the younger the nation the more homogenous the culture (birds of a feather and all that). This is simply because the imported culture has not had time to evolve into distinct local cultures. The rise of practical long distance travel and more recently global communications for the masses means that geography now plays a much smaller role in the establishment and maintenance of different cultures. In a historical sense it's a fairly recent development in Europe that normal people are even allowed to move freely between villages and towns, let alone move freely throughout all of Europe. This practice still has strong echos, you can still travel from one town to the next in parts of the UK and find very different cultures, things road signs in Gaelic or Welsh are not uncommon, and nobody has a clue what a "Jordie" is saying except another Jordie. That's not something that's just confined to the UK, the whole of Europe is the same.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You could say the same thing about most western countries, with some variability about which minorities boost the homicide rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine but if Moore was claiming that Canada was not more gun restrictive then America he was wrong. Handguns have been highly regulated since the 1920's and things like assault rifles are also highly regulated. Canadians have lots of rifles and shotguns with very few handguns.
Personally I see the problem as being handguns rather then firearms when it comes to the high number of gun related deaths in America. With the claims that the 2nd amendment is mostly about being able to raise up against the government, banning handguns would have no affect on that capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
anyone else notice the disturbing number of terms they have for "attractive female passenger"?
creepy.
1 - Weapons are a basic human right? So we're guilty of human rights violations by preventing Iran and North Korea from getting nukes? And we should let people buy landmines and grenades? Does this apply to landmines and gas weapons? What about tactical armor and/or rockets and/or nukes? What is the logic that allows each of these distinctions between which is or isn't a human right?
2 - Since when is a rifle a standard weapon of the time now? By quantity, landmines are are almost as plentiful as military rifles (400 million deployed since WWII, 65 million in the last 20 years according to one source 100 million deployed and 100 million in reserves by another). Landmines are definitely cheaper and more cost-effective defensive weapons ($3-30 apiece, remain lethal for decades without attention). By killing efficiency, machine guns win. By force multiplication value and deterence, laser-guided missiles let the afghanis beat USSR. Compared to rocket and grenade launchers, rifles against armor are about as worthless as slingshots.
3 - Tautologies like 'only a government afraid' pretend the entire world is just as you believe it to be. In fact, democratic/republic governments often decide that certain things are unacceptably hazardous. We ban porn, drugs, weapons, religious beliefs, books because the citizens and/or government (they are often the same thing) choose to. This happens less because of fear of citizens than fear of the hazards associated with that item. Yeah, it can be repressive. But that's a shades of grey decision: many very enlightened and safe and progressive nation restricts gun ownership for reasons other than fear.
Yea, I read in the Constitution the other day, in the second amendment, that muzzle-loaders was what they intended, its written right there just after the part where the first amendment only applied to hand operated printing presses and not the internet.
Liberals have their own copy of the constitution, its not worth talking to them about it. All they do is call you a bigot after you prove how completely wrong they are.
... I know Mexico has strict laws that simply don't work.
Do I have to remind you that the so-called "Fast & Furious" ATF gunwalking scandal provided a lot of guns to Mexicans???? Mexico may have strict gun laws, but thanks to USA ATF those laws don't work!
Aw, jeez, here we go again with this old trope. This has already been debunked six ways from Sunday numerous times, but still gets repeated ad nauseum by gun control proponents.
How about we look at the actual numbers as reported by the GAO? (US Government Accountability Office for non-USians)
According to the June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (the particular report that is cited for high percentages of guns in Mexico being from the US), some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
Therefor, your claim is disingenuous at best, and outright propaganda and lies at worst.
Here's another set of numbers.
Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. Thatâ(TM)s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.*
Strat
* For football deaths, see Frederick O. Mueller, Annual Survey of Football Injury Research: 1931-2001, National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (February 2002) at http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm. For school firearms murders, see Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, "School Associated Violent Deaths," The National School Safety Center Report (June 3, 2002) at http://www.nssc1.org./ In addition to the 22 murders which occurred on school property or at school-sponsored events, there were another two shooting deaths which were accidents and twelve which were suicides.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Weapons are a basic human right? So we're guilty of human rights violations by preventing Iran and North Korea from getting nukes?
Maybe not a human rights violation, but you're a fucking piece of trash for pretending to be the world police.
I keep asking if this is so true then why does every nationality and US state that has stricter gun laws have a lower rate of gun death?
Perhaps a flippant anwer, but perhaps the US contains more people who deserve to be killed? I'm not making any judgment here. US-ians are doing it it, not me, after all. "You cut me off! Eat lead!" Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Another way to look at this would be to consider the guns per gun related homicide numbers. In the US, there are approximated 89k guns per 100k people, giving a guns per gun-homicide ratio of 24k guns per gun-homicide. Serbia, the #2 country for guns per capita has approximately 58k guns per 100k people, giving them a guns per gun-homicide rate of 93k guns per gun-homicide.
So why not compare guns per gun homicide of the US vs. say, the UK? Or even use something much less culturally influenced, like comparing guns per gun homicide in a state like Florida or Texas (everyone everywhere has a gun or 12 and they have Thanksgiving Day shooting gettogethers) vs. a place like NY, DC, or IL (modern manufacture guns are all but banned)?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Interesting that you link to that video, The first person he gives a drivers license number to and it appears she enters it in a computer (background check possibly?) the second refuses to sell to him because he doesn't have a texas drivers license and the third they angle the camera up and claim the guy sold them the gun but it looks to me that the guy is leaning back and waiting for the next guy as in he didn't sell to them. and all in all at the end of the video they admit to multiple felonies in the recording of the video. The guy is from washington, dc which means he can't legally buy a gun in texas the only person breaking the law (or using a loophole) is the guy filming the video itself.
Serious analysis has always basically said (as I understand it) urban poverty preceeds crime". Said another way, crime increases as people cease being mutually reliant upon their neighbors. DC, for instance, is very impoverished, urban, and not mutually dependent. ND has never been not impoverished so there's nothing to proceed it, but it's also very rural and people need to be reliant upon their neighbors - everyone knows everyone's business.
What's interesting is that it's been suggested recently that the massive spikes in gun ownership and concealed carry laws being passed is that despite increased poverty in certain areas, national (violent) crime rates have actually dropped.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Because the number weren't quite so easy to get - gun ownership is divided up by Northern Ireland, England & Wales and the Scotland whereas crime isn't. Done very quickly, so there could be some errors:
Northern Ireland: 21.9 guns/100
England & Wales: 6.2 guns/100
Scotland: 5.5 guns/100
Populations:
NI: 1,810,900
E&W: 53,013,000
S: 5,295,000
Total number of guns in the UK: c.3,974,618
Total population of the UK: c.60,118,900 (actual number is about 63 million, so I'm missing some people somehow)
So we get 6.62k about guns /100k
Finally, we get from this that the UK has about 165 guns per gun homicide, so basically we need almost 7 times as many guns to create a gun homicide than the US.
Maybe you guys should try using sarcasm and witty put downs instead of killing each other when you get grumpy. </sarcasm>
I've got to disagree with you here. The founding fathers didn't write, as far as I know, of "general self defense" as a reason for why the right to keep arms should be maintained. The right to self defense was, to them, so common sense that they didn't even conceive it to be written. They were primarily concerned about averting the cause of tyranny.
Keep in mind, these were people who came from a culture where dueling to the death over honor occurred, and warfare was fought basically as an orchestrated duel amongst large groups of men. They did think very differently than we do. :) (Remember, some of the founding fathers even wanted to institute Washington as the King of America.)
Their world was one of an all-powerful sovereign government (ie, "ordained by God"). England, the Crown, the Church, and the Will of God were synonymous. While I agree that self-defense was a prerequisite, it most certainly wasn't a conscious primary cause for the 2nd Amendment. It was keeping the contention of men who would rule over others at bay.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Not only will gun owners keep killing each other, they'll continue to do so with guns. You think criminals care about more laws? :)
Also, if the population is unarmed, expect the creatures of opportunity - the criminals - to branch out and diversify their sources of income...
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
A big part of our high murder rate is the drug war. You can try and take away everything besides rocks and pointy sticks (and fail miserably) but the drug dealers will keep killing each other. Nothing besides complete legalization is going to end it.
It might be a part of it, but the USA have always had a high level of violent crimes, including murders. Of course, that might be the reason it becomes a drug war in the US, as opposed to the cease-fire that is the norm in other western countries where drugs are illegal.
"narrowly-focused leading question designed to produce only one possible rational response"
You do understand that that's how truths work, right?
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
It appears that "well regulated militia" portion was written in disappearing ink and only shows up in copies that were shipped out of the USA. Either that or a lot of people are deliberately pretending to be idiots for their own advantage.
Sorry Dan667, but I do not think it is possible for you to be as stupid as you are pretending. It's not a self-destruct clause.
America - where you can scream "smash the state" and still pretend to be conservative.
The example of Syria is right there in front of you, let alone the American Civil War, yet people cling to the idea that it will be a few gentlemen with hunting rifles taking potshots at each other? Waco seems like yesterday to me, Kent State was a bit longer ago, but shouldn't have been forgotten yet, and that should let you know that the US military is not going to lie down and give up just because it's on home soil. While Private Bill from New Jersey isn't going to be happy about shooting up New Jersey he's going to be a lot less reluctant to shoot some angry Californian - that's the sort of method Stalin (among many others dating back to at least Caeser) used to exert control. A small coup would be a bit of a bloodbath, a full revolution would be a thing of horror.
I think instead if you put this to them they'd probably order you to be dragged away and shot for being a counter-revolutionary and possible Royalist.
Do you really see this amendment as a self-destruct button?
Regulations are not really relevant when they are not actually applied.
Outside of China (which is pretty diverse internally anyway), just about everywhere has a wide mix of cultures just like the USA.
Please tell me how you plan to take down the government with your assault rifles while they roll up on you with satellite imagery, tanks, jets, and long range missiles. Not to mention that a huge percentage of people in the police and military come from poor families who just want their paycheck.
The counter-argument being: if that is true, why do you need guns in the first place?
TSA = Thousands Standing Around
There were 4 years where the murder rate was particularly high, yes.
They were prohibited long before that, which led to the creation of kama, kusari-gama, nunchaku, etc. people find ways around restrictions.
We are indeed well past 20 tons of TNT
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low.
Actually, the evidence says the exact opposite. Japanese people in America have a lower murder rate than those actually in Japan.
Even taking away guns entirely, Americans have a higher murder rate than many countries. We're just really violent. Considering the number of assaults and other crimes stopped by guns (well over an order of magnitude more than the number of people killed annually by firearms; see research by Kleck, Lott, etc.), any prohibition is just stupid.
Gun control exists because people suck at analysis of the problem domain, and tend to prefer emotion rather than logic.
That's what many of us have been saying for decades. Gun laws are impossible to apply, unless people submit to those laws.
When you get all the burglars, robbers, rapists, muggers, etc to agree to obey gun laws, then we can discuss enacting gun laws.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I know, the gun control crowd is sick of hearing that. But, they are unable to counter a very basic truth. Outlaw guns, and the criminals will know that you are unable to defend yourself. You'll be shocked at how brazen they become.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You definitely have to look at the "active" guns per capita.
I, for example, have what appears to be a nice semi-automatic pistol in my basement on the high, high shelf, behind some other stuff, in its original box. My grandfather was a Naval officer for a time, and it was his sidearm. He died in the early 1970's, and I doubt it's been fired since some time in the 1960's.
I have no bullets for it, and also no Firearm Owner ID in a state that requires it.
My mom has a rifle or two that were his in her basement. Once again, she has no FOID, but she might have some forty year old ammunition laying around.
The likelihood of any of these guns being used for a crime or other violent act is essentially zero. There's no point to even considering them for purposes of US gun statistics.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Japan is just one example of lower deaths and no guns..
So? As is oft posited here on Slashdot, correlation != causation, and you know it as well as I do.
Every other 1st world nation that enforce strict gun control laws has lower gun deaths and violent crime then the US.
[citation needed]
Question you should ask yourself - is gun control the only difference between those nations and ours?
gun control will magically make serial killers disappear.
It isn't magic when you have all the data we have. It's counter intuitive, but that's different. And if the best you can do is 'serial killer' as you comparison, then you got nothing.
Serial killers, which are basically rampage killers who spread it out over time, are a real problem, one that won't be stopped by banning guns - if you look at a list of American serial killers, you'll realize that very, very few of them used guns, but many claimed tens to hundreds of lives anyway.
To say that banning guns will do anything to stop the Manson', McVeigh's, or Fish's of the nation is to speak abject nonsense that flies in the face of reality, and is nothing more than a kneejerk emotional reaction that will have absolutely zero effect on the penchant or ability of crazy motherfuckers who want to murder others.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I am not going to beat around the bush then - if you eliminate crimes from a certain set of minorities that most other countries don't have our violent crime numbers would be much lower.
love is just extroverted narcissism
There is no border between a retarded state like Texas and a sane one like New York
You mean the same sane state that says you can't buy anything larger than a 16oz soda?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57512246-10391704/sugary-drinks-over-16-ounces-banned-in-new-york-city-board-of-health-votes/
or that restaurants can't put salt on the table?
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2010/03/proposed-ny-law-would-ban-salt-in.html
or that bans food donations to homeless shelters because they cannot asses the salt content?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/
Sounds really sane to me.
There are a lot of factors, and the direction of causality is not always so clear. For example, if I lived in an area where people tended to be shot, and moving out wasn't an option, I'd be more likely to arm myself. Is this a cyclical, compounding problem? Of course. But there also isn't an easy solution, especially in a country where the police aren't obligated to protect you.
We've tried, but the Political Correctness groups key suing the people who do.
"Gun Show Loophole" is the soundbite, because there isn't enough time to give a thoughtful and well detailed explanation during the 30-minute news-hour that passes in the US now. We haven't had real news reporting since they started showing commercials during the news.
The evidence from, say, Japan, or Scandanavia, is that if you have an extremely homogenous population, the murder rate will be very low. It's not just about controlling the guns.
Obviously we don't need gun-control, we need land-control: we should be giving out free land to people to spread them out to prevent gun deaths.
Canada has nowhere near the population density of the United States. That's a rather large factor.
Blaming an act on the tool chosen is laziness
Sigh, yes, but so is blaming an act solely on the individual. What causes these things to happen? Everything. Who/what is to blame? Everything.
From his mother, to his friends, to the society that raised him and didn't catch that he was going to go on a shooting spree. To the culture we have in place that encouraged him to hide how crazy he was. To the tools which made killing a bunch of kids that much easier.
And, most of all, the nut-job himself. Don't forget that. Blame him first. He killed a bunch of kids. Just don't stop there, because there's plenty of blame to go around.
Also, let's take a second to blame the NRA and the gun culture that was just OOZING to fight a battle about the 2nd amendment. I shit you not, I was at a business lunch, we saw the headline for half a minute and the first words out of Mr. Numbnuts-republican-midboss was that "we should have armed the students... I mean teachers... that would have saved them." Their tiny little corpses aren't even COLD and you turned this into a political debate. I'm sorry, but the conditioning and mind-washing is enough to make me gag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dntZRJ2BxQ0
Even if you go along with the idea that "self defense" is a legitimate reason to own a gun (and most Europeans and Aussies don't), assault weapons are not even designed for self defense, they are called "assault" weapons for a reason.
It couldn't be more clear that the Australian and European peoples have a drastically different idea of where the no cross line is than Americans. The American line is well beyond self-defense. Foreigners wanting to push their ideas on Americans is one of the reason many people here buy guns. Let Americans solve American issues.
In addition they are indeed called "assault" weapons for a reason. It is to poison the well. How can any rational person be for a gun with that sort of name? There have been mass shootings in America that involved bolt action hunting rifles, so you are a fool if you think banning "assault" rifles will stop mass shootings.
Maybe it's just that the people in states with high levels of general crime/gangs/drug culture are the ones demanding the right to own guns
Wrong. Some of the loudest yells can be heard coming from the rednecks in the South. I'm one of them. If you come to take my gun, you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Your converted .223 to full-auto will hold you out against the US Military for...wait, who the fuck are we kidding? You'd be dead before you saw someone to shoot at.
I'm a veteran of the U.S. Air Force with two tours in Afghanistan under my belt. And I'm here to tell you: you're a moron. And a coward. And a slave, who's too stupid and apathetic to see it.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
Looking at my desk, I think a stickynote is the only thing that I can not determine how to use as a debilitating/deadly weapon, and that's probably a lapse in imagination more than a trait of the stickynote.
papercut to the jugular.
What do I win?
homocide
Bigot.
The fact that I'm of the opinion that the general public should not have access to assault rifles does not mean I have an anti gun agenda.
I was simply pointing out to the parent post what the words "anti gun agenda" literally mean. If you are against certain guns, that could be construed as an anti gun agenda. Not all anti gun agendas include the removal of all guns, not are they necessarily bad things.
And Hiram Maxim made that justification moot. You have a Bushmaster, your Government has the Predator and the A-10.
It appears that you have badly missed the meaning of my post above relating to gun crime in Mexico.
It was not some anarchistic dismissal of the idea of the rule of law but instead supposed to point out that resources are required by any nation that wishes to enforce the rule of law.
Gun laws are not impossible to apply unless little or no effort is put into enforcing them. Have enough resources and you don't have very many outlaws.
Also I think your break and enter example is childish and shows a poor understanding of human nature: if it's easy enough for large numbers of outlaws to have guns it's going to be pretty easy for everyone, so that house they break into may have a hidden but quickly accessible gun or two that normally law abiding citizens "forgot" to hand over.
> Full disclosure: I fully suspect that if guns were outlawed here in the US, we would see an alarming rise in knife related crime.
I think this is part of the natural journey to reduce violent crime you have to handle when you get there, i.e. there is no easy way to solve all the problems in a short amount of time, but until better gun control is enacted the whole process can not begin. When if/when knife crime becomes the new problem the US will just have to deal with it at that point in time. The switch over from guns to knifes will however clearly indicate the criminal mind-set has changed and in the end that is exactly what you need to happen to get a lasting resolution, by change the mind-set of the criminal.
In Australia there was mass shooting in 1996 resulting in the death of 35 people. Public outcry helped push legislation for stricter gun control laws, and there has not been a single mass shooting incident there since then.
Actually, there have been several mass shootings in Australia since 1996, e.g. Monash. On top of that there have been several bombings and arson attacks on children. There have not really been any studies I've seen indicating their gun control measures were effective in reducing violent crime or violent injury or death. There have been several studies showing that the proportion of crimes committed using firearms went down, which is a victory if your goal is to stop gun crimes, but that's a sort of idiotic goal, isn't it?
I personally think that everyone here is so willing to kill each other because we have so little vacation time. Damned Protestant work ethic!
Also, we're too broke to afford vacations even when we have time.