The gun thing - a question from a European

[ProVobis]

Lisa, population-wise the US is 5 times larger than the UK but even if you multiply our 39 gun homicides by 5, it doesn’t approach the US rate of 9,000 which adjusted for population is 45 times higher. The same is true elsewhere in Europe.

Nine gun-related deaths in Chicago just overnight, I heard on the radio this morning. And it’s below freezing, if that matters.

 

[Irritator]

Guns in Africa are a completely different issue. Failed states like Somalia can hardly be compared to America’s most violent areas. We do have laws against gun violence. It’s just that those pesky criminials don’t pay much attention.

I think you missed the part in my reply that said “no need to go there” - but I forgive you for not reading things in full…

Our country’s legislation is enacted by elected representatives. While looking at some of the stupid laws recently (Obamacare comes to mind here) it might be better if everything were done by direct vote of the people but even our President is not based on a popular vote.

I thought that Obama was elected by popular vote in 2008 and that Obamacare was based on that mandate?

Oh and I’ve looked at they way Europe operates. The recent legislation, the social changes I most detest are imports from Europe. NO THANK YOU! I just hope we dont’ follow Europe’s path on social issues or financial ruin.

Lisa

At least for your own financial, banking and housing crisis of 2008 you didn’t need the example of Europe - you did it all on your own… but I do appreciate your solid arguments against the social issues of Europe, your detesting them is very well founded.

 

[LisaA]

I think you missed the part in my reply that said “no need to go there” - but I forgive you for not reading things in full…

I thought that Obama was elected by popular vote in 2008 and that Obamacare was based on that mandate?

At least for your own financial, banking and housing crisis of 2008 you didn’t need the example of Europe - you did it all on your own… but I do appreciate your solid arguments against the social issues of Europe, your detesting them is very well founded.

We have an Electoral College for the Presidential election. In most cases the popular vote and the Electoral College name the same winner but for example in 2000 Al Gore won more popular votes but George Bush was named President (and for that I am truly grateful) due to the Electoral College.

The seeds of Obamacare were sown long ago with the “progressive” movement. In 2006 the Democrates took over the House and Senate. In 2008 we elected Obama (have I mentioned how sorry I am about that?). With NO Republican support, Obamacare was shoved through in a hail of back door deals, bribes, promises and executive orders. From its inception, it has had a negative approval rating from the people. But we are stuck with it.

Oh our housing crisis was also a result of government interference, most notably the Community Reinvestment Act which allowed people to buy homes under the “Ninja” doctrine…no income no job. Yes we created this ourselves. And sadly still paying the price while the perps have laughed all the way to the bank.

But back to guns, we have a different culture than Europe, we’re far more independent and self sufficient…or that was the American outlook. Unfortunately we have been corrupted with the nanny state approach. Not sure whether we blame Europe or just point to Marx

Lisa

 

[TimeEntrance]

I, too, equate average citizens to gang-members and drug-dealers. Legislation aimed at criminals wouldn’t make sense. They wouldn’t listen. Taking firearms away from citizens who are inclined to obey the law, however, is an excellent method of reducing gang and drug related gun violence. Proof of this is cities such as Chicago and LA, where violent crime is almost non-existent thanks to gun legislation.

Sigh

Number one, within my generation, just about everyone (black anyways) was affiliated with a gang in one way or another. The very reason I was shot at by Vice Lords around 1st or 3rd and Burleigh was due to guilt by association. You could not not know gang members no more than you could live in a city and not know a person of the opposite sex. That didn’t make you a gang member, but something akin to how Americans or the world feel compelled to sympathize with one side over the other between Al Qaida and America, so too, many were socially and culturally pressured to feel more sympathy between one side over the other between 2-4’s (Peoples) and 2-7’s (Folks) and then later Vice Lords (Peoples) and Gangster Disciples (Folks).

And a non-gang member can be more morally corrupt than a gang member. Really, none of that matters to me to be honest. Aside from the fact I don’t like the doctrines of the gangs. Some on the street would subscribe to the notion that the United States Government and be it Russia or Al Qaida are all just much larger versions of street gangs using more powerful weapons. Actually, my uncle that was a decorated Milwaukee Cop (he killed someone in the line of duty), and I hear used to break the law himself, told me in the past that they (the cops) are the biggest gang in the city.

Notice Americans and Russians and Al Qaida can be just as tribal as street gangs. None of them are just holding hands with all humanity saying “we all are just the same.”

I realize there are some very good people in the country that do their best to follow laws and be good neighbors. But I would say those people are fewer and fewer in the nation. At least in the America I know. And that’s the one I intend on surviving.

But I would say legislation pretty much is aimed at Americans. But then I view people in prison as Americans too. Of course, knowing people incarcerated is normal in my area. I have a few friends in prison now. One in for bank robbery.

Street gangs have laws to mind you. The Gangster Disciples like the Catholic Church is against homosexuality. So, we live and are saved by the law you say. A mobster and street thug might not disagree with you. Rules and honor they might say separates us from the savages.

 

[TimeEntrance]

No, it’s not semantics at all. You’re copping out on your responsibility to evaluate the evidence based on valid statistical methods, using as an excuse that there are people who report nonsense disguised to look like they were the result of valid statistical methods.

I stand by what I said. I was a child when few guns existed in the hands of people in my neighborhood. Then lived through the period when many began arming themselves with guns. In the former case few gun crimes existed.

You put up Matix and Platt as an example of wanting to challenge the police in a gun battle (your words, not mine), when in fact they were quite intent on eluding the police. The battle erupted only when the Feds performed a felony stop on their vehicle and trapped it up against a tree - they were cornered.

Your sloppy evaluation of the facts in this specific example is indicative of your sloppy evaluation of the facts in general.

First of all I was already aware neither set out with an intent to engage the cops. That was the same with the L.A. bank robbers as well.

In both cases law enforcement were engaged because the suspects wanted to engage them. I can know just knowing the mind set of military people in the Rangers and Marines. I can also know this knowing people that don’t want to engage the cops simply surrender.

So, no, you’re wrong.

You’ll respond that deep, deep, down in their hearts they probably didn’t want to. Maybe neither do soldiers and Marines running toward gun fire on the battle field, maybe neither do those engaged in CQB that never give up ground but move toward the person or person shooting at them. But the heart is a complex thing isn’t it?

This is exactly what I’m talking about: you’re not interested in actual analyses, nor are you interested in carefully studying what poses as them to make sure they’re valid. You’d rather rely on what you wouldn’t be surprised at, or some vague impression you have of gun fights in general without evaluating any single one of them in enough detail to even know what actually happened. I’m willing to bet that you’ve used the “guns are more likely to be used on someone you know than on a stranger” line without ever having bothered to find the report that it came from, much less gone on to actually read it to figure out if it was valid.

Such sloppy thinking is guaranteed to arrive at sloppy results.

My “vague” impression comes partly from CQB training with a fair amount of paintball practice in room clearing. It also comes from taking three .40 caliber bullets in the upper body from a police officer, while disarmed (I didn’t need a gun to not refuse to surrender or lay down), and still moving to engage him with bare hands with his pistol drawn on me.

And I know from practice in paintball room clearing that standing in one spot is far more likely to get you shot than moving rapidly toward the shooter and shooting. Taking ground. Not moving back. Now, that’s in my head. I don’t care what you think about it.

The two men you spoke of had it in their head they rather die than be taken alive. Otherwise they would not have fought and fought as hard as they did.

And like I said… I lived through the change in my own city. I was born in 1971 and it was not until around the mid 1980’s or so that the city began having it many gun shootings.

Actually, this is becoming too much acrimony between us. So, I’ll cease. The author of the book “Lizzie Beautiful” caught my heart with her heroic and godly response to all her obstacles and incredibly mean responses online some people gave to her. She’s better than me. But she’s also better than most Americans I know.

Pace.

 

[Mark121359]

The seeds of Obamacare were sown long ago with the “progressive” movement. In 2006 the Democrates took over the House and Senate. In 2008 we elected Obama ***(have I mentioned how sorry I am about that?). ***

I just had to laugh when I read this. But I’m with you. Oh so sorry indeed!

 

[Kaninchen]

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

I really don’t understand why Europeans should care in the slightest about what happens in America.

 

[Cristiano]

I think that people should get up and really question why fireworks are allowed in so many countries. Here where I live they are forbidden and we do not have any deaths because of that. Something that scatters debris within 60 feet is really a weapon, a bomb. Where does the need to use fireworks come from, haven’t we had enough deaths already?

 

[LisaA]

I really don’t understand why Europeans should care in the slightest about what happens in America.

Human nature I guess. We all have a hard time minding our own business! If not for this odd trait, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and Snookie wouldn’t find an audience.
Lisa

 

[Kaninchen]

Human nature I guess. We all have a hard time minding our own business! If not for this odd trait, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and Snookie wouldn’t find an audience.
Lisa

In the sense of “something weird is happening so let’s take a look,” perhaps, but that’s different from giving the rear quarters of a member of the species ‘rattus, rattus’, isn’t it?

I’ve no idea who Kim Kardashian or Snookie are which is probably a good thing.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Sigh

Number one, within my generation, just about everyone (black anyways) was affiliated with a gang in one way or another. The very reason I was shot at by Vice Lords around 1st or 3rd and Burleigh was due to guilt by association. You could not not know gang members no more than you could live in a city and not know a person of the opposite sex. That didn’t make you a gang member, but something akin to how Americans or the world feel compelled to sympathize with one side over the other between Al Qaida and America, so too, many were socially and culturally pressured to feel more sympathy between one side over the other between 2-4’s (Peoples) and 2-7’s (Folks) and then later Vice Lords (Peoples) and Gangster Disciples (Folks).

And a non-gang member can be more morally corrupt than a gang member. Really, none of that matters to me to be honest. Aside from the fact I don’t like the doctrines of the gangs. Some on the street would subscribe to the notion that the United States Government and be it Russia or Al Qaida are all just much larger versions of street gangs using more powerful weapons. Actually, my uncle that was a decorated Milwaukee Cop (he killed someone in the line of duty), and I hear used to break the law himself, told me in the past that they (the cops) are the biggest gang in the city.

Notice Americans and Russians and Al Qaida can be just as tribal as street gangs. None of them are just holding hands with all humanity saying “we all are just the same.”

I realize there are some very good people in the country that do their best to follow laws and be good neighbors. But I would say those people are fewer and fewer in the nation. At least in the America I know. And that’s the one I intend on surviving.

But I would say legislation pretty much is aimed at Americans. But then I view people in prison as Americans too. Of course, knowing people incarcerated is normal in my area. I have a few friends in prison now. One in for bank robbery.

Street gangs have laws to mind you. The Gangster Disciples like the Catholic Church is against homosexuality. So, we live and are saved by the law you say. A mobster and street thug might not disagree with you. Rules and honor they might say separates us from the savages.

Thank you for that. I just wanted to see how much of your reasoning for firearm restrictions was baseless or anecdotal. It would appear that all of it is. I’m glad to know you draw no distinction between people who have committed violent crime, people who are in an organization for the purpose of committing crime, and ordinary citizens. Your logic is flawless, as are your anecdotal claims. Your wisdom is surely a force to be reckoned with.

Do you have any empirical data that would show that violent criminals do not commit more violent crime than ordinary citizens? You know, like a hard statistic from the UCR, or something similar. It’s amusing because while earning my criminal justice degree, the subject that repeat offenders commit a majority of violent crimes came up, and that, as a demographic, gangs commit a (extremely) disproportionately high amount of violent crime when compared to the average citizen. I’ll try to find the book, but really that should be common sense.

Edit:

The first sentence of this NIJ report on gangs: “Gang members engage in a higher level of serious and violent crime than their non-gang-involved peers.”

So far your anecdotal ‘evidence’ about the possibility of non-gang members being more ‘morally corrupt’ than gang members has no empirical backing of any kind (which was obvious, but I just thought I’d drive it home with statistics).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Thank you for that. I just wanted to see how much of your reasoning for firearm restrictions was baseless or anecdotal. It would appear that all of it is. I’m glad to know you draw no distinction between people who have committed violent crime, people who are in an organization for the purpose of committing crime, and ordinary citizens. Your logic is flawless, as are your anecdotal claims. Your wisdom is surely a force to be reckoned with.

Do you have any empirical data that would show that violent criminals do not commit more violent crime than ordinary citizens? You know, like a hard statistic from the UCR, or something similar. It’s amusing because while earning my criminal justice degree, the subject that repeat offenders commit a majority of violent crimes came up, and that, as a demographic, gangs commit a (extremely) disproportionately high amount of violent crime when compared to the average citizen. I’ll try to find the book, but really that should be common sense.

Edit:

The first sentence of this NIJ report on gangs: “Gang members engage in a higher level of serious and violent crime than their non-gang-involved peers.”

So far your anecdotal ‘evidence’ about the possibility of non-gang members being more ‘morally corrupt’ than gang members has no empirical backing of any kind (which was obvious, but I just thought I’d drive it home with statistics).

And as for treating criminals no different (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics):

“Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.”

bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Released criminals, as a demographic, commit far more crimes percentage-wise than non-criminals. Sorry, TimeEntrance. Your anecdotal ‘data’ isn’t strong enough to legislate against all Americans because of the wrongdoings of specific demographics (which aren’t related to race, but rather inclination to criminal activity. Gang and criminal affiliation really does equal a higher amount of violent crime. Who knew?)

 

[ProVobis]

“Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.”

Not a very meaningful statistic, IMO. Who’s going to hire these ex-convicts? It’s no wonder to me that most end in jail again.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Thank you for that. I just wanted to see how much of your reasoning for firearm restrictions was baseless or anecdotal. It would appear that all of it is.

I never argued for firearms restriction.

In fact I don’t support firearms restriction.

You are claiming I’m for something I’m not.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I’m glad to know you draw no distinction between people who have committed violent crime, people who are in an organization for the purpose of committing crime, and ordinary citizens. Your logic is flawless, as are your anecdotal claims. Your wisdom is surely a force to be reckoned with.

You’re into stereotypes. Let me try to say this again: there are adult gang members that are working class tax payers simply living their lives not bothering anyone. Some of them are less hostile when you speak to them then you are in this conversation.

I also don’t know what a person without a criminal record is other than a human. If he guns down a school, the days or hours before that did not make him “good” because he was “law abiding” and your gang member working a blue collar job to support his wife and kids “bad.”

“Law abiding” means as much to me as the terms “Catholic” or “Muslim.”

Do you have any empirical data that would show that violent criminals do not commit more violent crime than ordinary citizens?

Violent criminals commit more violent crimes than non-violent criminals. The problem is your law abiding citizens with no criminal records may well be some of the most violent criminals of all. Or maybe they snap and kill a bunch of people. The U.S. has its fair share of serial killers that are respected members of their community and non-gang members that commit mass shooting at places like schools.

The United States must have a good program going developing citizens into these things. The interesting thing is Americans think they’re not Americans. They are exactly that.

You know, like a hard statistic from the UCR, or something similar. It’s amusing because while earning my criminal justice degree, the subject that repeat offenders commit a majority of violent crimes came up, and that, as a demographic, gangs commit a (extremely) disproportionately high amount of violent crime when compared to the average citizen. I’ll try to find the book, but really that should be common sense.

Edit:

The first sentence of this NIJ report on gangs: “Gang members engage in a higher level of serious and violent crime than their non-gang-involved peers.”

So far your anecdotal ‘evidence’ about the possibility of non-gang members being more ‘morally corrupt’ than gang members has no empirical backing of any kind (which was obvious, but I just thought I’d drive it home with statistics).

I don’t know what more gang members do than non-gang members, no more than I know what more Catholics do than non-Catholics.

What I know is that you have gang members that are hyper-violent and cruel, and some that are “p____.” Others of them are much more typical Americans aside from having hard heads and subscribing to doctrines that I regard as immoral. But there are adult gang members one can encounter that are fairly good people–probably better than your average American.

You just have your head full of stereotypes.

 

[TimeEntrance]

And as for treating criminals no different (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics):

“Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.”

bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Released criminals, as a demographic, commit far more crimes percentage-wise than non-criminals. Sorry, TimeEntrance. Your anecdotal ‘data’ isn’t strong enough to legislate against all Americans because of the wrongdoings of specific demographics (which aren’t related to race, but rather inclination to criminal activity. Gang and criminal affiliation really does equal a higher amount of violent crime. Who knew?)

I think I already stated in other threads most people shot in the United States have criminal records.

The Milwaukee Police Chief has already been on TV stating most people shot in Milwaukee have criminal records. Part of his reason for pointing this out is that he supports gun restrictions (whereas I don’t) and makes the case that if one is not involved in crime they are really of no need to own a gun.

For example, I live around gang members and criminals, I don’t own a gun, I have not been shot by a gang member or criminal. I also know if I don’t engage in crime I can live around all the gang members and criminals in the world and greatly reduce my chances of getting shot or ever needing a gun.

Reduced being the key word.

You say you are law abiding–whatever that means–then why do you need a gun if you don’t associate with gang members and criminals?

I want firearms to protect myself against Americans. Labels mean nothing to me. The term criminal doesn’t carry all that much weight with me either.

This all reminds me of the Latin Kings and their use of the rosary, and supposedly some schools now banning the rosary because it is gang affiliated tool, that and the Nation of Islam and many of the black converts to Islam from Christianity that transform their lives.

Yes… most your criminals and gang members on the South side of Milwaukee are Catholic. Relative to Muslims in Milwaukee Catholics are probably disproportionately criminals.

But Catholic, Muslim, gang member, and law abiding mean little to me. Most school shootings are not committed by gang members neither are workplace shootings or “going postal” or mass shootings period.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Addendum to post #218.

The Milwaukee Police Chief and Mayor agree with you PeaceInChrist about criminals.

Elsewhere the Police Chief has blasted the NRA for not caring about the lives of police officers. I think two cops in Milwaukee that were shot (one permanently disfigured in the face) have sued a local gun store where the gun came from. My understanding is most criminals in Milwaukee buy there guns through people with no criminal records. Your “law abiding” citizen label you like so much.

News video of Police Chief and Mayor: fox6now.com/2012/12/20/police-chief-mayor-push-for-ban-on-assault-rifles/

**Police chief, mayor push for ban on assault rifles

Posted on: 4:22 pm, December 20, 2012, by Myra Sanchick**

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn displayed a few of more than 10,000 guns police seized in the past four years. It includes an AR-15 similar to the one used in the mass shooting which killed 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

In the past two years in Milwaukee, Chief Flynn says 28 children younger than 13 have been shot.

“Mass murder may never be a curable event. Gun violence in America may not be curable events. But we can make it harder to commit mass murder,” said Flynn.

 

[Zooey]

The theory was that the Ft Hood shooter was not like the other mass shooters in finding location where he was unlikely to encounter anyone shooting back long enough to “make his point.” But in fact he was. This shooter was aware of the protocol at Ft Hood and the area where he made the attack was particularly vulnerable. Other military mass shootings have occurred in the DFACs or other places that you have large groups of people who are not armed. It’s not as if the Ft Hood shooter walked into the MPs office or started shooting at the front gate. He knew what he was doing.

As to your second point, in general most public areas are relatively gun free. The point was those areas posted with this designation seemed to be counterintuitive since they were a draw for these mass shooters, most of whom have seemingly chosen either gun free zones or areas where they do not expect anyone to shoot back.

So what’s your point? That mass shooters simply randomly select locations and would be as likely to start firing in the middle of a police precinct as an elementary school? Surely you jest.

Lisa

Thank you, Lisa. I am enjoying your thoughtful & intelligent posts in this thread.

Comforting words given what’s in the White House and Congress these days. **I’m not sure most of them have read the Constitution they swear to uphold. **The military is a different story.
Lisa

I suspect they’ve read it.
The problem is that they [A] don’t agree with it & ** refuse to follow it. Hence our current lot in DC.

I am convinced that people from Europe or just about anywhere else in the world, will not EVER understand our mindset because they do not have our constitution and have not had our history. We are not Europe, and they are not us.

You are quite right, I think.
Mind you, not understanding us is not necessarily a bad thing.The victory of Daniel Morgan & his militia over [expletive deleted] Tarleton & his trained professional crew at Cowpens showed us that . (“How was I supposed to know they would beat us, your majesty? Why their leader hadn’t got a tooth in his head, & they were all in rags & skins!”)

I really don’t understand why Europeans should care in the slightest about what happens in America.

Thank you, I appreciate this point being made by a European.

In the sense of “something weird is happening so let’s take a look,” perhaps, but that’s different from giving the rear quarters of a member of the species ‘rattus, rattus’, isn’t it?

I’ve no idea who Kim Kardashian or Snookie are which is probably a good thing.

Oh, yes, I am sure that you are much happier without that knowledge. Just the sight of their names on the page made me feel more than a little nauseous.**

 

[Maciosaig]

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. - Thomas Jefferson
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” *Thomas Jefferson

“… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty… And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

 

[kelvinf]

I really don’t understand why Europeans should care in the slightest about what happens in America.

Well, we as human beings should care about what happens to other humans especially injustice, the loss of lives and so on irrespective of whether they are citizens of our various countries or not. Anyways, it’s not a must. Some care, others don’t care. I care for instance and it’s just a human reaction.

When Americans fairly criticise how secularism is killing Europe, they do so because they care about religious liberties.

That said, there are other things that connect societies like the economy. If the America economy collapses, it would have dramatic effects world wide. So certain economical and political policies made in the US directly or indirectly affect non-Americans. Likewise, Americans pay attention to EU policies because it also affects them somewhat.

Finally, if you travel around the world, you would realise most nations receive at least one American channel. In certain parts of Africa for instance it could in fact be the only availabe channel or least during a certain time of the day since not all channels are live 24 7.

Why would someone in some remote part of Africa be fed with Voice of America?