a new gun study

Post Reply New Topic

The problem is statistics like these really aren't so convincing. We all know that stupid people use guns in stupid ways. But nobody wants to think of themself as a stupid person.

If everyone uses a gun responsibly at all times and never makes any mistakes there are no problems. Guns really don't kill people. The gun advocates are correct on this point.

So in US we've got this freedom thing. Everyone is a genius and noone screws up ever.

So everyone can have a gun. Lol. And if guns were wiped out (magically) would the homicide rate increase or decrease. I speculate that it would decrease but it can't be proven. Correlation does not prove causation and if you look from country to country, region to region, there is not always a direct (or inirect) correlation that you would expect.

A lot of the problem really is in American's attitudes. I'm from America but I'm not a fan of some of values that are espoused as American. I think it is ironically American for me to be able to express this view. Freedom of speech. Lol.

You can wipe them out magically, and I speculate any possible action probably won't make any differnce one way or the other, based on no being a consistent pattern across the globe.

There are big myths about the true nature of crime: Firstly the perception of crime, and the perception about the deterrents.

The true nature of crime is counter intuitive, becuase you can't view crime from a first person hypothetical and project from that.

If people just focus on guns as the solution or problem of crime they are missing the bigger picture. It is a secondary factor.

Gun violence might drop if you ban guns(duh) but the overall the violent crime rate usually stays the same or even increases. Guns were completely banned in Jamaica back in the 70s and they went door to door to confiscate them too, Jamaica before this time was a relatively peaceful place but 40 years later is one of the most violent dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest rates of murder. Most murders in the US are actually committed by people they know or in some way gang/drug related, that's where we need to focus our attention because that is where we can make the most difference as opposed to random psycho killers who will always exist.

/\ Banning a thing doesn't make it go away it just makes it illegal, otherwise this country would be free of illicit drugs. We will NEVER be free of illicit drugs.

With all the taxpayer money spent (read wasted), lives ruined, killings, and prison space overfilled due to the "War on Drugs" just multiply that for a "War on Guns".

Diabetes is usually preventable and sometimes even curable through diet and exercise alone. There is no quick and easy prevention for gunshot wounds. The fact that I have to explain that to you says a lot.

Most people with two braincells to rub together aren't going to drink the kool aid that is the product of this "study" or others of its kind. In reality (with at least two braincells fully engaged) it just doesn't add up.

I've personally met as many doctors (MD's) at shooting ranges and gun shops as anywhere else. Most MD's are bootstrap conservatives who got to where they are mostly by thier own hard work and perseverance, not from a government sugar-tit. Too many of them are just not going to buy into this BS and give it any credence.

Indeed. Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership ( http://www.drgo.us/ ) which, as luck would have it, includes among its top commentaries one such commentary "Can 'Gun Violence' Be Addressed as a Public Health Issue?" ( http://www.drgo.us/?p=1077 ) which asks "Is it really valid to address gunshot injury and death as matters for public health intervention? The short answer is that this is a smokescreen. The commission of gunshot injuries and deaths ('gun violence') cannot be fairly addressed as a 'public health issue', as that phrase has become used in its case."

so they should be able to regulate and limit food consumption to all Americans to prevent obesity? a far larger health issue hitting a Americans.

I believe the terms you were looking for are actually 'arms' and 'ordnance', as 'arms' is the word used in the Constitution, and has a concise definition that rules out the nuclear weapons red herring argument.

How often does this actually happen and when it does happen how often does it result in said converted weapons being used in a crime?

I as I said my point was satirical I'm not actually serious. However the definition of arms is obviously important as far as the constitution is concerned.

Also under the dictionary definition ordinance are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.

The distinction you make between ordinance and arms, is more modern than than the constitution so is worthy of a modern consideration.

The definition of indiscriminate is important as far as the constitution is concerned. Early musket are in fact mini cannons, that is the evolution of firearms.

Having lived in Jamaica, most of the serious violence has a connection to the politicians. They don't called them "Don Constituencies" for nothing. There is a chain of corruption between the politicians and the dons, and certian area are defacto X party as they are expected to vote for that side under pain of death.

Btw in the before this happened Jamaica wasn't all that peaceful. Micheal Manley didn't help gun violence, as he was very decisive politician and wrapped up in it anyway. I fact you could say Micheal Manley cause a lot of the problem that has plagued Jamaica since. They could never enforce these laws anyway, they were cynical measure anyway.

Not that i totally disagree with you either.

Eddie Seaga was just as bad Manley.

1989 was the most violent election.

Thing have improved a bit in the 90s an 00s. They brought in anti-fraud measures for elections, reduced election violence. In fact when I did a project on this when I was there they took me round, they had ID photo card, finger print scanners, etc. However ti was not all ready for that election. But certainly more sophisticated the UK elections, or many countries.

Also Carter's organization supervised the election. JLP challenged the result (as expected), and it was looked into.

Would you agree that the gun ban disarmed primarily law-abiding citizens and contributed to the escalation of violence by leaving the general population at the mercy of the government/opposition/criminal gangs with no way to defend themselves? I don't think anybody could say gun control worked in Jamaica.

It wasn't really implemented properly, also they types of people that were penalised were farmers. Gun ownership wasn't as high you think, amounts ordinary folks.

The curious thing about Jamaica is you can have very violent areas, but not far a way a sleepy middle class area with much less violence. South Africa is a different story

Manley increased racial division; he created tension between blacks, Chinese, Indian, and White Jamaicans. Many people left the country. The irony is that Castro was his idol, didn't subscribe to his racial division.

Manley is also famous to lying to the Rastafarian to win votes. Haile Selassie visited Jamaica in 1966 he was bemused by Rastafarianism treating him as the Messiah but never actually challenge them. They welcomed him when he landed, with much jubilation. He gave them gold medallions. He gave a wooden staff to Norman Manley.

Later when Micheal was running for election and having acquired the staff, he declared it the "staff of Zion" in order to appeal to the Rastafarian vote.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 18 Jul 2015, 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I played snooker with a likely murderer. When I was there the Venezuelan Ambassador was shot dead with his own registered shotgun. All the evidence was pointing to the son having done it. There was some rumor of domestic violence/issue being the motive (possibly invovling sister/mother), btw we will never relay know as he was whisked out of the country under diplomatic immunity. I don't know if justice was ever served.

Months before this happened I met up with this boy, he came to my house and we payed snooker. He was a pleasant enough boy, quiet but affable.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything by this btw, just a tragedy.

The most unpleasant part of the whole affair was that many of the South American expat tried to imply it was perpetrated by some Jamaican Yardie, despite there being zero evidence of that or even a break in.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... n-violence

WOW!! !!
They used bar charts so you just KNOW it's gotta be the truth.....