Slog Comments
"Fox Affiliate Thoroughly Debunks Piers Morgan’s Gun Homicide Statistics"
1
59 gun-related homicides in the UK versus at least 7500+ gun-related homicides in the US still reflects badly on the US.
4
Of course you don't. But the fact remains that the cultural differences between America and England make comparing the two a case of "apples and oranges."
My guess, and I have nothing to back this up (because as far as I know, nobody keeps track of this) would be that, if you remove the drugs and the gang-bangers from the equation, the numbers would be roughly comparable.
My guess, and I have nothing to back this up (because as far as I know, nobody keeps track of this) would be that, if you remove the drugs and the gang-bangers from the equation, the numbers would be roughly comparable.
8
It's funny though how they will Google for blogs with any mention of gun control and try to dominate conversation with emotional blather that has nothing to do with public safety. How is it they have so much free time? Are they seniors or unsupervised children or criminals under house arrest?
9
OK, I was able to come up with one stat. 74% are gang-related. That may or may not be ddrug-related, as there's considerable overlap. But it gives you an idea what I'm talking about.
10
Anytime someone like 5280 makes a statement like that -- clearly predicated on the idea that the UK is some lily-white, hermetically sealed anachronistic impression from his childhood viewing of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang -- it proves him to be the worst kind of Proudly Ignorant American Exceptionalist.
The rest of the world: it's diverse/complicated/messy/interesting too!
The rest of the world: it's diverse/complicated/messy/interesting too!
11
@10, I have to assume that people like him are behind the NRA's push to stop gun buy back programs. They enjoy the effects gun violence has on Heston's "certain ethnic minorities."
12
tl;dr The UK has gangs, drugs, blight, crime. And plenty of it. Still far fewer gun-related homicides, and, thusly, far fewer homicides in total.
13
And this is precisely why you guys will never "get it." America doesn't have a "gun problem," it has a "race problem." Always will — the "gun problem" is just a symptom. Go ahead and treat the symptom instead of the disease — all the while calling anyone who identifies the disease a racist — and you're still going to lose the patient.
I don't care. I'm getting old. Fuck it up however you want, I won't be around to see the end result. Thank God.
I don't care. I'm getting old. Fuck it up however you want, I won't be around to see the end result. Thank God.
14
More to the point, the UK's ban on guns did very little to reduce their overall homicide rates. Plenty of statistics here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
(Page 2 - relevant file is 'Historical crime data')
And here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
You'll notice that from 1980 to 1997, the per capita homicide rate was an average of 11.2 (per million). Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997 to 2002, per capita homicide INCREASED to a maximum of 17.9 (per million) in 2002. (Mostly due, I believe, to Shipman) it has trended downward since then, averaging 12.9 from 2003-2011 with 11.5 (per million) in 2011.
While firearms are currently responsible for a miniscule number of deaths (.07 per 100k) their use has been replaced with sharp and blunt instruments. Additionally, per capita rates of at-home burglaries, assault and sexual assault are much higher in the UK and have gone up since the handgun ban. During that same time period, in the USA, virtually all crime has gone down.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
(Page 2 - relevant file is 'Historical crime data')
And here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
You'll notice that from 1980 to 1997, the per capita homicide rate was an average of 11.2 (per million). Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997 to 2002, per capita homicide INCREASED to a maximum of 17.9 (per million) in 2002. (Mostly due, I believe, to Shipman) it has trended downward since then, averaging 12.9 from 2003-2011 with 11.5 (per million) in 2011.
While firearms are currently responsible for a miniscule number of deaths (.07 per 100k) their use has been replaced with sharp and blunt instruments. Additionally, per capita rates of at-home burglaries, assault and sexual assault are much higher in the UK and have gone up since the handgun ban. During that same time period, in the USA, virtually all crime has gone down.
16
@13: Well, there are some diseases where you have to treat the symptoms instead of the disease itself, aren't there? Some things can't be cured, so all you can do is try to control the fever and hope the patient gets better. I know, I've carried the metaphor about three steps too far.
17
Doesn't the UK take a little better care of its citizens though? Yeah, they have gangs and drugs and race problems like the US does, but they also provide health care to everyone. Do they have ghettos and slums like the US, where people wallow in misery for decades? Do they sling massive numbers of people in prison for minor offenses and then simply toss them out into the street when their sentence is over?
I mean, I don't know how socialist the UK really is, but if the government takes better care of the people, maybe the people don't feel so helpless and hopeless to the point of not caring about their own or anyone else's life and go on a killing spree?
I mean, I don't know how socialist the UK really is, but if the government takes better care of the people, maybe the people don't feel so helpless and hopeless to the point of not caring about their own or anyone else's life and go on a killing spree?
18
I don't even buy subtracting the so-called "justifiable" homicides by police and our well regulated [sic] militia. Many of those would never have escalated to the point of shooting at all if our society were not flooded with guns, thanks to the NRA, "the criminal's best friend".
It isn't just pencil-dicked losers with Walter Mitty fantasies who make up our crazed gun culture. It's criminals too. They believe the gun hype. And it's the "law abiding" gun owners who supply the gun food chain, feeding the legal, quasi-legal, and illegal transfers of weapons that arms the criminals. Which leads to somebody getting shot.
Sometimes it's the good guy, sometimes it's the bad guy. But somebody getting shot happens because of all the guns out there.
It isn't just pencil-dicked losers with Walter Mitty fantasies who make up our crazed gun culture. It's criminals too. They believe the gun hype. And it's the "law abiding" gun owners who supply the gun food chain, feeding the legal, quasi-legal, and illegal transfers of weapons that arms the criminals. Which leads to somebody getting shot.
Sometimes it's the good guy, sometimes it's the bad guy. But somebody getting shot happens because of all the guns out there.
19
@15
According to Mother Jones, 71% of mass shootings in the last 30 years were committed by white males.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012…
According to Mother Jones, 71% of mass shootings in the last 30 years were committed by white males.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012…
20
Ah, yes. This is my favorite part, where Tinkerbell spreads the magic fairy dust and makes 300,000,000 guns disappear. Do keep going.
21
@19, yeah, and that accounted for what, 1% of the body count? Mass shootings, much as the media loves them, make up about 70 deaths a year on average.
23
@13
You need to say this more. You make so many arguments that don't make sense. If you really believed what you say, you'd not be saying it.
But when you bring in your racism, it makes perfect sense. Like here you linked to a racist rant on a really shitty web site that went on about unstoppable hordes of black animals who need an elephant gun to bring them down, and the waves and waves of armed Mexicans flooding our borders. You called this racist shit " intelligent thoughts".
Obviously you're wrong about the supremacy of the white race, and all the conclusions that follow from that, but at least you're logic is sound. And you're never going to get your fellow whites to wake up and see the "race problem" if you don't talk about it.
You need to say this more. You make so many arguments that don't make sense. If you really believed what you say, you'd not be saying it.
But when you bring in your racism, it makes perfect sense. Like here you linked to a racist rant on a really shitty web site that went on about unstoppable hordes of black animals who need an elephant gun to bring them down, and the waves and waves of armed Mexicans flooding our borders. You called this racist shit " intelligent thoughts".
Obviously you're wrong about the supremacy of the white race, and all the conclusions that follow from that, but at least you're logic is sound. And you're never going to get your fellow whites to wake up and see the "race problem" if you don't talk about it.
25
5280 just doesn't get it.
America doesn't have a "gun problem," it has a "race problem."
And the UK has all manner of "race problems", too. Some unique to an ex-Colonial power, many you'd find perfectly familiar.
Oh, and Australia got rid of the (assault-type) guns. Yes, all of them. And severely restricted the handguns. Took a few years and a great deal of concerted effort, but yes, they basically made them disappear from the landscape with Tinkerbell fairy dust.
Your utter ignorance of the world outside your Rocky Mountain bubble continues to leave me aghast.
Urgutha @17:
Do they have ghettos and slums like the US, where people wallow in misery for decades?
Sadly, yes. Despite the healthcare and the better bottom-rung safety net than we have, income disparity in the UK has exploded since the policies of the Thatcher era reached full bloom. There is, in fact, intractable poverty. Thus the drugs and gangs and London being one of the less safe cities in Europe in which to walk alone at night.
You're still far more likely to get shot in Denver.
America doesn't have a "gun problem," it has a "race problem."
And the UK has all manner of "race problems", too. Some unique to an ex-Colonial power, many you'd find perfectly familiar.
Oh, and Australia got rid of the (assault-type) guns. Yes, all of them. And severely restricted the handguns. Took a few years and a great deal of concerted effort, but yes, they basically made them disappear from the landscape with Tinkerbell fairy dust.
Your utter ignorance of the world outside your Rocky Mountain bubble continues to leave me aghast.
Urgutha @17:
Do they have ghettos and slums like the US, where people wallow in misery for decades?
Sadly, yes. Despite the healthcare and the better bottom-rung safety net than we have, income disparity in the UK has exploded since the policies of the Thatcher era reached full bloom. There is, in fact, intractable poverty. Thus the drugs and gangs and London being one of the less safe cities in Europe in which to walk alone at night.
You're still far more likely to get shot in Denver.
26
@23, anybody who could call one word that my bud Mas Ayoob writes "racist" is clearly so clueless it's not even deserving of a response. Maybe you should Wiki him before blowing off.
But you've already lost all credibility here thanks to your hysteria anyway. Nobody cares what you think any more.
But you've already lost all credibility here thanks to your hysteria anyway. Nobody cares what you think any more.
27
@21, The difference is, the majority of victims from mass shootings are predominately white and middle-to-upper class. The majority of victims of homicide, as a whole, are poor non-whites, so no one gives a shit.
http://readersupportednews.org/news-sect…
If people were actually interested in reducing gun crime, they wouldn't be concentrating on "assault weapons", but would be concentrating on handguns. Incidentally, Mother Jones appears to be classifying any scary looking rifle as an "assault weapon" including a Ruger 10/22 and a bolt-action Ruger, in both cases, a handgun was the 'preferred' weapon. Actual "assault weapons" as defined by the ban was more like 10 and half of those were actually "assault pistols" (Uzi, Tec-9..etc.)
http://readersupportednews.org/news-sect…
If people were actually interested in reducing gun crime, they wouldn't be concentrating on "assault weapons", but would be concentrating on handguns. Incidentally, Mother Jones appears to be classifying any scary looking rifle as an "assault weapon" including a Ruger 10/22 and a bolt-action Ruger, in both cases, a handgun was the 'preferred' weapon. Actual "assault weapons" as defined by the ban was more like 10 and half of those were actually "assault pistols" (Uzi, Tec-9..etc.)
28
@25, And yet, despite Australia getting rid of a lot of firearms (households with firearms reduced by 50%), armed burglary rates still track at the same percentage of all burglary rates (whups, guess criminals still have about the same percentage of firearms), assaults and sexual assaults are up significantly and homicides are down marginally - in fact, the trend in homicide reduction is less than what it was before the firearms bans. On the plus side, there haven't been any mass shootings yet!
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…
29
@27 Requiring that all legally owned handguns be registered with the federal government, that all transfers of gun ownership be approved through the instant background check system, and that all thefts of firearms be reported to the police would go a long way toward keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys.
30
Maybe. Maybe not. We could argue that all day, but we don't have to, because that would be unconstitutional.
31
@26
I don't believe you think nobody listens to me, because you obviously are desperate to make me shut up. If nobody cared what I thought, what is driving you to silence me? You know every time you reply to me it makes your tens of thousands of loyal fans read my posts, right?
On the other hand, I want you to post more. I want you to link more to Massad Ayoob's words. Tell your story. Do you have more articles like "Why Good People Need Semiautomatic Firearms and High Capacity” Magazines Part I"? Holy crap this is only Part 1 of a series! Link to Part 2! Please?
Your opinions on our "race problem" are extremely helpful in clarifying this discussion. Stop censoring yourself and show us where stand. Open up, will you? Tell us how you really feel.
I'd even offer you a deal. I'll post less if you will post more of this stuff like the Ayoob assault weapon's are for darkies essay. Deal?
I don't believe you think nobody listens to me, because you obviously are desperate to make me shut up. If nobody cared what I thought, what is driving you to silence me? You know every time you reply to me it makes your tens of thousands of loyal fans read my posts, right?
On the other hand, I want you to post more. I want you to link more to Massad Ayoob's words. Tell your story. Do you have more articles like "Why Good People Need Semiautomatic Firearms and High Capacity” Magazines Part I"? Holy crap this is only Part 1 of a series! Link to Part 2! Please?
Your opinions on our "race problem" are extremely helpful in clarifying this discussion. Stop censoring yourself and show us where stand. Open up, will you? Tell us how you really feel.
I'd even offer you a deal. I'll post less if you will post more of this stuff like the Ayoob assault weapon's are for darkies essay. Deal?
32
Au contraíre, my dear, I don't want you to shut up. I want you to grow up.
Let me know when that happens.
Let me know when that happens.
33
@14,
Much higher than what? Than it was before? Are you trying to imply that's because guns were banned? You do know that the vast majority of rapes are committed by acquaintances and so guns on either side would never enter the equation, right? And, the UK, up until two years ago, had a lower sexual assault rate than the U.S. Does that mean the proliferation of guns in the U.S. causes rape?
sexual assault are much higher in the UK and have gone up since the handgun ban
Much higher than what? Than it was before? Are you trying to imply that's because guns were banned? You do know that the vast majority of rapes are committed by acquaintances and so guns on either side would never enter the equation, right? And, the UK, up until two years ago, had a lower sexual assault rate than the U.S. Does that mean the proliferation of guns in the U.S. causes rape?
34
@30
Why is it constitutional to regulate machine guns but not all guns? It makes no sense. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that draws a special line between types of guns. The Second Amendment specifically empowers the legislature to draw these lines. I know some activist judges have made up reasons to draw lines here or there or over there, but that's activist judges for you. Nothing in the Second Amendment tells you that handguns can't be regulated but rocket launchers can.
Otherwise, what is the constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns and mortars and missiles?
Why is it constitutional to regulate machine guns but not all guns? It makes no sense. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that draws a special line between types of guns. The Second Amendment specifically empowers the legislature to draw these lines. I know some activist judges have made up reasons to draw lines here or there or over there, but that's activist judges for you. Nothing in the Second Amendment tells you that handguns can't be regulated but rocket launchers can.
Otherwise, what is the constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns and mortars and missiles?
35
And of course NewsBusters - paragon of journalistic integrity that they are - don't link to the full clips, only to a local Fox affiliate who has already greatly edited the segment, making Alex Jones look nearly credible, not the foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorist nut that he is (or acts as when near a microphone), and clearly came off as during his appearance.
I will concede their point that facts largely don't matter to Piers Morgan, given his history, but still I have to agree with his sentiment that watching Alex Jones is the best argument one could have for sensible gun control.
I will concede their point that facts largely don't matter to Piers Morgan, given his history, but still I have to agree with his sentiment that watching Alex Jones is the best argument one could have for sensible gun control.
36
@32
"Grow up" is how white supremacists try to badger non-racists. Grow up. Wake up. Can't you see? It's right there!
They're SO BLACK! Can't you see?
"Grow up" is how white supremacists try to badger non-racists. Grow up. Wake up. Can't you see? It's right there!
They're SO BLACK! Can't you see?
37
@27
"The majority of victims of homicide, as a whole, are poor non-whites, so no one gives a shit."
Except as statistics to be tossed about by such "white and middle-to-upper class" people.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it.
If the staff at The Stranger was really interested in this subject (more than just grief porn) then they would have a column on all the shootings (whether anyone was hit or not) that happen in Seattle.
Including as many details on those shootings as possible.
Who, specifically, is shooting what at whom and why.
But that won't happen because real facts don't bring as many advertising hits as grief porn does.
And the real facts might just show that your grief porn assumptions are wrong.
"The majority of victims of homicide, as a whole, are poor non-whites, so no one gives a shit."
Except as statistics to be tossed about by such "white and middle-to-upper class" people.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it.
If the staff at The Stranger was really interested in this subject (more than just grief porn) then they would have a column on all the shootings (whether anyone was hit or not) that happen in Seattle.
Including as many details on those shootings as possible.
Who, specifically, is shooting what at whom and why.
But that won't happen because real facts don't bring as many advertising hits as grief porn does.
And the real facts might just show that your grief porn assumptions are wrong.
38
@33, Actually, apparently since the US figures for sexual assault are going down, and the UK figures are going up, while the reverse is true for gun ownership, I guess you said it perfectly.
Nice cherry picking though.
Nice cherry picking though.
39
@34, Actually any citizen (who is not a felon..etc.) can own a pre-1986 machine gun. You just have to find one, have the funds ($5-40k, probably), pay the $200 tax and wait 6 months for your stamp. Approximately half of the 240,000 pre-1986 machine guns in circulation are owned by private citizens.
42
Mmm hmmm, @30.
Background checks: already pass constitutional muster.
Reporting of various property transfers: already passes constitutional muster.
Reporting of theft of various types of property (e.g. controlled substances): already passes constitutional muster.
None of these things even remotely "infringe" upon ownership in any way.
You're full of shit as usual, gunboy.
Background checks: already pass constitutional muster.
Reporting of various property transfers: already passes constitutional muster.
Reporting of theft of various types of property (e.g. controlled substances): already passes constitutional muster.
None of these things even remotely "infringe" upon ownership in any way.
You're full of shit as usual, gunboy.
43
@39
I understand that. It's proof that air-tight regulations are not necessary. It's proof that by making it harder to own a particular gun, you end up with fewer of them on the street. It's proof that an assault weapons law doesn't need to be perfect. Those 240,000-some machine guns aren't floating around in the hands of petty criminals because they're in the hands of people who value them and make damn sure they don't lose them. We could make all guns objects of respect instead of cheap toys to be thrown around carelessly the same way.
I understand that. It's proof that air-tight regulations are not necessary. It's proof that by making it harder to own a particular gun, you end up with fewer of them on the street. It's proof that an assault weapons law doesn't need to be perfect. Those 240,000-some machine guns aren't floating around in the hands of petty criminals because they're in the hands of people who value them and make damn sure they don't lose them. We could make all guns objects of respect instead of cheap toys to be thrown around carelessly the same way.
44
@40, Why don't you look at the figures published by the Australian Government, or did they just make shit up? If you actually read the Snopes article, the letter referenced does not say what I said. Nice try though.
However, the best part of the Snopes article is the last line:
"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."
Tell you what - I'll stop posting facts about Australia (and the UK, or wherever) when people stop trying to point at Australia as this gun-free utopia where there is no relationship between gun ownership and crime.
By the way, here's Australia's stats on homicides:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicid…
You'll notice that the downward trend does not accelerate, or change much, in the post-ban years.
The problem is that you, and others like you, are trying to have it both ways - you want to point at Australia and say, "Hey! Look! No guns! No gun-homicides!" and at the same time you don't want to look at the actual numbers. Of course, you are given extra ammunition because the majority of gun-nuts that are given TV time are crazy! (Yes, I think La Pierre, the writer of the Snopes letter, the NRA and others like them do more harm than good.)
However, the best part of the Snopes article is the last line:
"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."
Tell you what - I'll stop posting facts about Australia (and the UK, or wherever) when people stop trying to point at Australia as this gun-free utopia where there is no relationship between gun ownership and crime.
By the way, here's Australia's stats on homicides:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicid…
You'll notice that the downward trend does not accelerate, or change much, in the post-ban years.
The problem is that you, and others like you, are trying to have it both ways - you want to point at Australia and say, "Hey! Look! No guns! No gun-homicides!" and at the same time you don't want to look at the actual numbers. Of course, you are given extra ammunition because the majority of gun-nuts that are given TV time are crazy! (Yes, I think La Pierre, the writer of the Snopes letter, the NRA and others like them do more harm than good.)
45
@43, "Assault weapons" aren't "floating around in the hands of petty criminals" either. "Assault weapons" are used in a very small percentage of overall crime and homicides.
The only time that fully automatic weapons were commonly used was during prohibition. With the end of prohibition, automatic weapon use (for crime) was already in steep decline before the NFA laws even came into effect. Additionally, the 1986 ban on machine guns came about even though machine guns have historically been used in a miniscule number of crimes.
The only time that fully automatic weapons were commonly used was during prohibition. With the end of prohibition, automatic weapon use (for crime) was already in steep decline before the NFA laws even came into effect. Additionally, the 1986 ban on machine guns came about even though machine guns have historically been used in a miniscule number of crimes.
46
@45
This isn't only about assault weapons. We didn't reduce the rate of traffic deaths nationwide by a factor of 20 by focusing on one specific type of car. We didn't reduce drunk driving deaths by focusing only on vodka sold at Smitty's Bar to drivers of 1986 Oldsmobiles. We have some very specific rules, like dictating how bartenders serve and to whom, and we have some very broad social changes, like changing drunk driving from something that is cool to something that is uncool.
Picking holes in the Assault Weapons Ban is part of a strategy of picking away at every single effort to reduce gun deaths. To divide them up and whittle them down one by one. The idea is to distract us from the big picture by geeking out over details.
This isn't only about assault weapons. We didn't reduce the rate of traffic deaths nationwide by a factor of 20 by focusing on one specific type of car. We didn't reduce drunk driving deaths by focusing only on vodka sold at Smitty's Bar to drivers of 1986 Oldsmobiles. We have some very specific rules, like dictating how bartenders serve and to whom, and we have some very broad social changes, like changing drunk driving from something that is cool to something that is uncool.
Picking holes in the Assault Weapons Ban is part of a strategy of picking away at every single effort to reduce gun deaths. To divide them up and whittle them down one by one. The idea is to distract us from the big picture by geeking out over details.
47
@26 I read your friend's wiki from top to bottom and I'm still unclear as to what in his bio exempts him from racism. Can you please explain? As you are well aware, I have a hard time "getting it" and could use a little help.
48
@46, If it isn't about "assault weapons" then why is it called an "assault weapons" ban? For the record, I'm for liability for gun owners when their firearm is used in a crime, I'm for more extensive/intensive background checks, I'm for closing the 'private party' loophole (not exactly sure how you're going to enforce that, but I'm certainly open to it), I'm for better mental health restrictions on firearms, I'm even for a ban on high capacity magazines (5, 10, 15, whatever) - as long as it doesn't grandfather existing magazines.
I am absolutely against a ban on cosmetic features. I realize it is the easiest thing to do, but it just distracts from gun control that will actually reduce gun crime. And, actually if you thought about what you wrote, I think you'd agree, in principle, that an "assault weapons" ban is, in fact doing what you said was not done to reduce traffic deaths.
I am absolutely against a ban on cosmetic features. I realize it is the easiest thing to do, but it just distracts from gun control that will actually reduce gun crime. And, actually if you thought about what you wrote, I think you'd agree, in principle, that an "assault weapons" ban is, in fact doing what you said was not done to reduce traffic deaths.
49
@44: You keep pointing to stats reported in absolute numbers, which are increasing at a slower rate than the total population of Australia. As in, exhibiting a per-capita decrease (except for homicides, which are experiencing an absolute decrease).
This was the very first fallacy explained in the Snopes piece.
Scary that it makes you so giddy to see a violent-crime line flicker upward (even if you are misreading the implications of that line).
This was the very first fallacy explained in the Snopes piece.
Scary that it makes you so giddy to see a violent-crime line flicker upward (even if you are misreading the implications of that line).
50
@48
I guess you should go to Google News or something. There's a broad range of proposed new laws, both state and federal, and possible executive orders. Senator Diane Feinstein's bill is just one of those many proposals.
Even at that, if it were in fact purely cosmetic, then it would make no sense why there is so much opposition. It would make no sense why the armed forces and police SWAT teams spend so much money to develop weapons that are merely cosmetically different than civilian ones. Sure, there's a lot of pork out there in military spending, but really? Think of all the billions that could be saved by armies around the globe if they were not so concerned with the cosmetics of their guns. It doesn't add up. The truth is that military features make the weapon deadlier. They're not decorations.
And then there's politics. Obmacare doesn't provide 100% coverage either. Concessions had to be made to get it to pass. A lot of the weaknesses in the AWB were put there by the NRA's lackeys in Congress to weaken it. One of the way change works is that you pass what you can now and work for more later. Look at the progress of piecemeal rights for gay couples, to civil unions, to marriage. I guess the gun nuts think that's a slippery slope, but to me it's called the political process.
I guess you should go to Google News or something. There's a broad range of proposed new laws, both state and federal, and possible executive orders. Senator Diane Feinstein's bill is just one of those many proposals.
Even at that, if it were in fact purely cosmetic, then it would make no sense why there is so much opposition. It would make no sense why the armed forces and police SWAT teams spend so much money to develop weapons that are merely cosmetically different than civilian ones. Sure, there's a lot of pork out there in military spending, but really? Think of all the billions that could be saved by armies around the globe if they were not so concerned with the cosmetics of their guns. It doesn't add up. The truth is that military features make the weapon deadlier. They're not decorations.
And then there's politics. Obmacare doesn't provide 100% coverage either. Concessions had to be made to get it to pass. A lot of the weaknesses in the AWB were put there by the NRA's lackeys in Congress to weaken it. One of the way change works is that you pass what you can now and work for more later. Look at the progress of piecemeal rights for gay couples, to civil unions, to marriage. I guess the gun nuts think that's a slippery slope, but to me it's called the political process.
51
@49, Actually, if you look at the figures, *per capita* assaults and sexual assaults have gone up in Australia. Indicating, since apparently you have difficulty with reading comprehension, that these crimes have gone up at a higher rate than increases in population. And I never said that homicide rates, absolute or per capita, were not going down. Please actually read the data before you spout off nonsense.
52
@50 There's a lot of opposition because declaring an AR15 an NFA regulated firearm involves a lot of hassle for anyone that owns one. And a lot of people (not me) think it is one of the first steps towards the government taking their guns.
Additionally, most of the proposals are linked to an "assault weapons" ban, so even though I think many of them have the potential to be good bills, the "AWB" fixation is a big negative. Of course, as you point out, we have that problem in politics all the time. Furthermore, the majority of gun control options do, in fact, center around an "AWB".
Sorry, a bayonet lug has no relevance to a gun used in criminal acts (how many crime victims were stabbed by someone with a firearm with a bayonet attached), a pistol grip and collapsible stock? I guess you could say that being able to fit a firearm to multiple shooters makes it more deadly since you want to use a tool that fits your stature. However, that is hardly a 'military' feature. Flash suppressor - fine you can have that one, it has certainly been a great aid to criminals using their "assault weapons" at night. But how about you make a ban on flash suppressors rather than "assault weapons"? High capacity magazine - maybe - but I have no problem with a magazine capacity cap.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, the M16 was picked up by the army essentially due to lack of competition at the time. The main criteria were also related to robustness and light-weight, not deadliness.
Additionally, most of the proposals are linked to an "assault weapons" ban, so even though I think many of them have the potential to be good bills, the "AWB" fixation is a big negative. Of course, as you point out, we have that problem in politics all the time. Furthermore, the majority of gun control options do, in fact, center around an "AWB".
Sorry, a bayonet lug has no relevance to a gun used in criminal acts (how many crime victims were stabbed by someone with a firearm with a bayonet attached), a pistol grip and collapsible stock? I guess you could say that being able to fit a firearm to multiple shooters makes it more deadly since you want to use a tool that fits your stature. However, that is hardly a 'military' feature. Flash suppressor - fine you can have that one, it has certainly been a great aid to criminals using their "assault weapons" at night. But how about you make a ban on flash suppressors rather than "assault weapons"? High capacity magazine - maybe - but I have no problem with a magazine capacity cap.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, the M16 was picked up by the army essentially due to lack of competition at the time. The main criteria were also related to robustness and light-weight, not deadliness.
53
Whoops, @51. The Australian government's own study concludes that those two outlier statistics are attributable almost entirely to "self-reporting" trends:
Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased.
And so forth: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curre…
But go ahead and get your cause-and-effect interpreted by half-literate American gun crazies on the internet instead.
Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased.
And so forth: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curre…
But go ahead and get your cause-and-effect interpreted by half-literate American gun crazies on the internet instead.
54
Well, I just placed an order for my assault gorilla, so I figure I'm all set. They're already black, so they had to add a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor.
55
@53 Wow, did you actually read the entire article? Or did you just take a quote out of context that fits your belief? You really need to work on that reading comprehension.
"somewhat responsible" == "almost entirely"??? You make the half-literate gun crazies look good.
Not to mention, but if you're going to pull your quote of the middle of the paragraph, you really should include the beginning of the paragraph:
The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation.
"somewhat responsible" == "almost entirely"??? You make the half-literate gun crazies look good.
Not to mention, but if you're going to pull your quote of the middle of the paragraph, you really should include the beginning of the paragraph:
The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation.
56
@52
Yeah they picked the M-16 because of a big fat conspiracy. Woooooo.
Oh, and every other military picks guns that have that assault weapons "look" because, uh, fashion? Cosmetics? No. Come on.
Your objections are not politically relevant. They're just talking points that the opposition would use to try to scuttle any law. You're just harping on the fact that it's not perfect. Everyone knows it's not perfect.
It's getting boring to listen to the same "it's not perfect" talking points. It's like Fox News around here.
Yeah they picked the M-16 because of a big fat conspiracy. Woooooo.
Oh, and every other military picks guns that have that assault weapons "look" because, uh, fashion? Cosmetics? No. Come on.
Your objections are not politically relevant. They're just talking points that the opposition would use to try to scuttle any law. You're just harping on the fact that it's not perfect. Everyone knows it's not perfect.
It's getting boring to listen to the same "it's not perfect" talking points. It's like Fox News around here.
57
Yeah, it is like Fox News. But only when you're around. There's only one person here who's ranting and raving with nothing to back it up, and it's not the rest of us.
59
Well, for starters, I don't see any racism at all there. I see a guy who, much like myself, who has spent his entire life dealing with the harsh realities of crime and criminals.
It's not nice, it's not prettyn and it doesn't fit into your "perfect world" bubble. It's ugly, nasty shit, and 99% of who you're dealing with out there on the streets involve either black or brown people.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions, but it's reality.
It's not nice, it's not prettyn and it doesn't fit into your "perfect world" bubble. It's ugly, nasty shit, and 99% of who you're dealing with out there on the streets involve either black or brown people.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions, but it's reality.
61
Sure. As long as we can also agree that you're a racist by virtue of your making that statement.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've never been out there on the street in a set of blues. You've never done a traffic stop, much less a domestic violence call. You've never had to clear a drug house.
You're completely content to live in your perfect little la-la-land where none of that shit ever happens. Well, for 32 years of my life, it happened every fucking day. And people died from it — lots of them.
It comes across to me as if you're actually defending that bullshit. You know what? You, honey, could not be more wrong if you tried. The underbelly of this world is far more sick than you could imagine in your wildest dreams. Don't be so quick to step up in its defense.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've never been out there on the street in a set of blues. You've never done a traffic stop, much less a domestic violence call. You've never had to clear a drug house.
You're completely content to live in your perfect little la-la-land where none of that shit ever happens. Well, for 32 years of my life, it happened every fucking day. And people died from it — lots of them.
It comes across to me as if you're actually defending that bullshit. You know what? You, honey, could not be more wrong if you tried. The underbelly of this world is far more sick than you could imagine in your wildest dreams. Don't be so quick to step up in its defense.
62
lol Like the criminals will give up their guns... where is your common sense? http://www.policymic.com/articles/22622/…
When did people get so stupid? I mean, the gangs and the criminals already have the guns, why would non criminals turn in their guns? So the murder rate will increase? CLUE IN.
When did people get so stupid? I mean, the gangs and the criminals already have the guns, why would non criminals turn in their guns? So the murder rate will increase? CLUE IN.
63
@59, I'm guessing close to 99% of them are men, too, meaning we not only have a "race problem" but also a "gender problem," right? Did you quiz any of them about their socioeconomic status? Education? Or is skin color the only characteristic it makes sense to reduce a person down to?
64
@61
And that's why everyone needs a 5.56mm high powered semi-automatic. Because these basic brown types don't drop with one shot from a .38. I got that line from Lt. Howard Hunter on Hill Street Blues. Firepower. Got to have it because they're so black.
Maybe you can explain the racial aspect better than I can. The logic is we have a "race problem" (wink wink) and that requires a military cartridge fired at a very high rate. With 30 round magazines. They're charging rhinos, these Latinos and blacks. Bull elephants.
I'm getting it all wrong, no? I'm all confused. You explain about the blacks and the browns and the whites for us all.
And that's why everyone needs a 5.56mm high powered semi-automatic. Because these basic brown types don't drop with one shot from a .38. I got that line from Lt. Howard Hunter on Hill Street Blues. Firepower. Got to have it because they're so black.
Maybe you can explain the racial aspect better than I can. The logic is we have a "race problem" (wink wink) and that requires a military cartridge fired at a very high rate. With 30 round magazines. They're charging rhinos, these Latinos and blacks. Bull elephants.
I'm getting it all wrong, no? I'm all confused. You explain about the blacks and the browns and the whites for us all.
65
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it.
If the staff at The Stranger was really interested in this subject (more than just grief porn) then they would have a column on all the shootings (whether anyone was hit or not) that happen in Seattle.
Including as many details on those shootings as possible.
Who, specifically, is shooting what at whom and why.
Updated daily.
But that won't happen because real facts don't bring as many advertising hits as grief porn does.
And the real facts might just show that your grief porn assumptions are wrong.
If the staff at The Stranger was really interested in this subject (more than just grief porn) then they would have a column on all the shootings (whether anyone was hit or not) that happen in Seattle.
Including as many details on those shootings as possible.
Who, specifically, is shooting what at whom and why.
Updated daily.
But that won't happen because real facts don't bring as many advertising hits as grief porn does.
And the real facts might just show that your grief porn assumptions are wrong.
68
"Since when is it racist to argue that America has a "race problem" due to blacks and browns being violent thugs?"
-- 5280
Man. I never thought I'd see a commenter dumber than MisterG or Seattleblues, but this wannabe-tough-guy has managed to take the cake.
Your assertions are, at best, misinterpretations of the confounding correlations between crime, poverty, and race. Most likely though, you're the gullible victim of racist propaganda, spewing out a bunch of faux world-weary cliches in order to look like you've led this tough gritty life battling mud-people. You're a pathetic racist pussy who laps up oversimplified, biased nonsense and shits it out on slog.
You'll rationalize this as you being a realist and acknowledging "harsh truths" about race, choosing to believe that everyone's pissed at you because racism is taboo to our delicate liberal sensibilities. But the fact is that these racist theories of yours are just stupidly inaccurate and oversimplistic; that's how they became taboo in the first place. You're merely too stupid to realize you're racist.
This stems from your larger problem of being too stupid to know you're stupid.
-- 5280
Man. I never thought I'd see a commenter dumber than MisterG or Seattleblues, but this wannabe-tough-guy has managed to take the cake.
Your assertions are, at best, misinterpretations of the confounding correlations between crime, poverty, and race. Most likely though, you're the gullible victim of racist propaganda, spewing out a bunch of faux world-weary cliches in order to look like you've led this tough gritty life battling mud-people. You're a pathetic racist pussy who laps up oversimplified, biased nonsense and shits it out on slog.
You'll rationalize this as you being a realist and acknowledging "harsh truths" about race, choosing to believe that everyone's pissed at you because racism is taboo to our delicate liberal sensibilities. But the fact is that these racist theories of yours are just stupidly inaccurate and oversimplistic; that's how they became taboo in the first place. You're merely too stupid to realize you're racist.
This stems from your larger problem of being too stupid to know you're stupid.
69
@56, The most used/popular assault rifle in the world is the AK-47, and it's variants, the basic configuration does not have a flash hider or collapsible stock, although it can have a grenade launcher and/or bayonet lug (and we know that those are essential to any modern crime spree), it isn't even very accurate at ranges >2-300 meters. It is, however, extremely robust and reliable in virtually any weather/environmental conditions and it is cheap to produce. It was not successful due to it's great killing effectiveness, but due to its cost to manufacture, simplicity to repair and use, and its longevity in the field.
So exactly what cosmetic feature is it that you believe makes an "assault weapon" a "deadly killing machine" that doesn't apply to any other semi-automatic weapon? Let's take a look at the Keltec SU-16A again:
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/ri…
Exact same capabilities as an AR15 as far as how many projectiles it can fire as well as approximately how accurately. Yet, due to cosmetic differences, it is not an "assault rifle". The SU-16C with a few cosmetic differences, but no functional difference is a banned "assault rifle".
There is no conspiracy behind the adoption of the M16 - only facts - you're the one that sees conspiracies everywhere.
Its sad how your arguments always devolve into name calling and aspersions of 'talking points' or 'conspiracies', whenever facts don't support you.
Incidentally, an AR15 is a terrible short-range self-defense weapon, particularly anywhere where a stray bullet can travel through multiple walls and hit an (innocent) bystander half a mile away (On the Arizona border, it may be a different story). It is, however, an excellent rifle for target shooting, varmint shooting and competition. With the correct upper receiver (allowing it to shoot 6.5mm to .308 to .50 caliber projectiles) it is an great hunting rifle.
More...
So exactly what cosmetic feature is it that you believe makes an "assault weapon" a "deadly killing machine" that doesn't apply to any other semi-automatic weapon? Let's take a look at the Keltec SU-16A again:
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/ri…
Exact same capabilities as an AR15 as far as how many projectiles it can fire as well as approximately how accurately. Yet, due to cosmetic differences, it is not an "assault rifle". The SU-16C with a few cosmetic differences, but no functional difference is a banned "assault rifle".
There is no conspiracy behind the adoption of the M16 - only facts - you're the one that sees conspiracies everywhere.
Its sad how your arguments always devolve into name calling and aspersions of 'talking points' or 'conspiracies', whenever facts don't support you.
Incidentally, an AR15 is a terrible short-range self-defense weapon, particularly anywhere where a stray bullet can travel through multiple walls and hit an (innocent) bystander half a mile away (On the Arizona border, it may be a different story). It is, however, an excellent rifle for target shooting, varmint shooting and competition. With the correct upper receiver (allowing it to shoot 6.5mm to .308 to .50 caliber projectiles) it is an great hunting rifle.
70
PS- As someone who has actually lived in a gang neighborhood, I can tell you that this image of black and brown people as this monolithic, murderous, unstoppable gang-banging threat is an outlook completely unique to people whose only experience with other races is from TV and movies.
That's how I know how full of shit these people are when they claim that we're just happily ignorant of these "harsh realities" they spout. Gangs are dangerous and scary, yes. But only a sheltered liar from the suburbs will believe that anything close to a majority of nonwhites are gang members, or that whites don't also form violent gangs. Which you'd have to believe in order to think that gangs are a "race" problem rather than a drug, poverty, and, yes, GUN problem.
You know where I've heard these types of rants about these so-called "harsh realities" the most? Not in California, where nonwhite gangs actually exist, but in fucking Alaska, where there are maybe four black people (and none of them even know each other, let alone occupy the same "street gang"). That should tell the rest of you something about how honest these dipshits are being when they claim that their racism is just due to having more experience with the "real world" than us softie liberals.
I'm fucking done here. I see no reason to read anymore of this half-baked Mein Kampf thread.
That's how I know how full of shit these people are when they claim that we're just happily ignorant of these "harsh realities" they spout. Gangs are dangerous and scary, yes. But only a sheltered liar from the suburbs will believe that anything close to a majority of nonwhites are gang members, or that whites don't also form violent gangs. Which you'd have to believe in order to think that gangs are a "race" problem rather than a drug, poverty, and, yes, GUN problem.
You know where I've heard these types of rants about these so-called "harsh realities" the most? Not in California, where nonwhite gangs actually exist, but in fucking Alaska, where there are maybe four black people (and none of them even know each other, let alone occupy the same "street gang"). That should tell the rest of you something about how honest these dipshits are being when they claim that their racism is just due to having more experience with the "real world" than us softie liberals.
I'm fucking done here. I see no reason to read anymore of this half-baked Mein Kampf thread.
73
@70 According to the FBI in 2011 in a majority of murder cases in which the perpetrator's race was known, the killer was African American. Considering the blacks are only 12% of the US population that's a big disparity. Nobody is saying that all or even most African Americans are criminals, but a disproportionately large number of black people tend to be involved in crime.
74
A little late to the reply, but @55, every reference in your quote is to a rise in "recorded assault". Every single fucking last one.
You know how recorded assaults rise? People report them, and they get recorded. The papr chalks up all of the "increase" in sexual assaults to reporting, and it partially attributes the increase in the other crimes to reporting.
As for assaults against children, the following two statements are connected:
Indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation...
The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation...
So... partially it's about the way police log and categorize. Also it's about better public awareness and citizen reporting. Two separate reporting factors.
You know what never comes up? Any demonstrable proof whatsoever that such crimes are actually on the rise, much less on the rise because the victims aren't armed to the teeth like good 'Merican assault victims.
You know how recorded assaults rise? People report them, and they get recorded. The papr chalks up all of the "increase" in sexual assaults to reporting, and it partially attributes the increase in the other crimes to reporting.
As for assaults against children, the following two statements are connected:
Indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation...
The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation...
So... partially it's about the way police log and categorize. Also it's about better public awareness and citizen reporting. Two separate reporting factors.
You know what never comes up? Any demonstrable proof whatsoever that such crimes are actually on the rise, much less on the rise because the victims aren't armed to the teeth like good 'Merican assault victims.
75
@73, Race is associated with poverty; poverty is associated with crime. When you only consider a criminal's race you're overlooking the actual predictor(s).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confoundi…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confoundi…
76
@75 African Americans and Hispanic Americans live in poverty at similar rates. Yet, black people commit a lot more crimes.
77
Oh yeah, let's have a discussion about violence in America. As long as the only thing we're allowed to talk about is banning guns. That makes sense.
79
@74, You continue to amaze me. So, a verifiable trend based on recorded assaults (because there are no figures on un-recorded assaults!) going up year after year is just because police are recording more? But really, assaults have gone down. (As, possibly, maybe, speculated by someone who has a biased interest in showing a decrease in crime???)
You know, reporting on sexual assaults in the USA have also gone up. And you know what? Recorded sexual assaults have NOT shown a regular increase. In fact, rape has decreased 60% since 1993:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/sta…
You know, reporting on sexual assaults in the USA have also gone up. And you know what? Recorded sexual assaults have NOT shown a regular increase. In fact, rape has decreased 60% since 1993:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/sta…
80
@78 You can see a break down of poverty rates by race here:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compareb…
you can see official statistics regarding homicide perpetrators here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compareb…
you can see official statistics regarding homicide perpetrators here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
81
I really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I assure this would be beneficial for most of the people.
http://th.asiasbobet.info
http://th.asiasbobet.info
83
Positive site, where did u come up with the information on this posting?I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style. Thanks a million and please keep up the effective work.
new online bingo sites
new online bingo sites
84
I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. therefore, I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article.
online casino asia
online casino asia
85
Great post I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this interesting and knowledgeable article.
http://vi.winningft.tv
http://vi.winningft.tv
86
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article.
www.magicseosolution.com
www.magicseosolution.com
Comments (86) RSS