Gunman at DC Navy Yard shoots at least 7

[JoeB131]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

You are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the borders of the USA, yet we own 50% of all guns in the world

It's not the gun.

We need more prisons, US wide death penalty and other real consequences for crime

-Geaux

Just repeating something stupid doesn't make it smart.

Besides the fact your 12x figure is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT, we certainly don't need more prisons.

We already lock up 2 million people, most of them for drug and property crimes.

And if the Death Penalty was a deterrent, why do countries that have outlawed the practice have lower crime rates than the US? Why does Wisconsin (which has never had a death penalty) have a lower crime rate than Texas?

You are operating on emotion here. Killing people you don't like would make you feel better, but it really doesn't solve the problems.

 

[JoeB131]

[
We do not have the highest murder rates.
We are just honest in the way we compile the numbers.
The UK government will not record a murder as a murder until a conviction has been secured. This is probably true for most EU states.
In the USA a murder is recorded as such once the body has been found and other causes of death ruled out.
Do try to keep up.

Right.

That works on the assumption that British Cops are like escapees from a Monty Python Sketch.

The UK only had 648 murders last year. (only 48 with guns)

We had 15, 900 - (11,101 with guns)

Now either they have a really crappy conviction rate or you are full of shit.

I'm going with the latter.

 

[Brain357]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's our tolerance for the criminal element. We just do not have serious deterrents to crime. No consequences result in increased risk taking

We have all these guns, 50% of all owned in the world, yet you are 30% less likely to die of homicide in the USA than you are outside her borders

It's our failed diversity experiment that has America sailing like a ship without a rudder

-Geaux

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

We do not have the highest murder rates.
We are just honest in the way we compile the numbers.
The UK government will not record a murder as a murder until a conviction has been secured. This is probably true for most EU states.
In the USA a murder is recorded as such once the body has been found and other causes of death ruled out.
Do try to keep up.

So that would really only effect the numbers if a conviction is never secured. Are you saying they have far fewer homicides and let all the murderers go? Seems very unlikely.

Does Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan all do the same thing?

 

[Geaux4it]

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

You are 12x more likely to die of homicide outside the borders of the USA, yet we own 50% of all guns in the world

It's not the gun.

We need more prisons, US wide death penalty and other real consequences for crime

-Geaux

You are a violent society,that have a gun culture........you as a nation are totally irresponsible.......how odd you are wanting more prisons,when mentally you are imprisoned in your own minds because of the gun culture.

Wake Up

LMAO

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, you are less likely to die of crime in America than in a third world country having a civil war.

Like that's something to be proud of.

However, you are MUCH MORE likely to die of crime in the US than any other industrialized, advanced democracy, which is what we supposedly are.

The only thing that has failed is our libertarian expirment that ignores our obligations to each other as a society.

If we have 270 million guns, and 2 million people in prison, and we STILL have the highest murder rates in the industrialized world, then we are just plain doing it wrong.

We do not have the highest murder rates.
We are just honest in the way we compile the numbers.
The UK government will not record a murder as a murder until a conviction has been secured. This is probably true for most EU states.
In the USA a murder is recorded as such once the body has been found and other causes of death ruled out.
Do try to keep up.

So that would really only effect the numbers if a conviction is never secured. Are you saying they have far fewer homicides and let all the murderers go? Seems very unlikely.

Does Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan all do the same thing?

In Conservatard Land, you have to believe that the rest of the Industrialized World, far more liberal than we are, is lying about statistics to preserve their world view.

SO if they are healthier, live longer, and have less crime, it isn't because they have socialized medicine, no guns and a welfare state.

It's because they are "lying" about their statistics, and every citizen of their country goes along with it.

Except Pauli, who apparently left the UK because it was too socialist.

 

[Brain357]

We do not have the highest murder rates.
We are just honest in the way we compile the numbers.
The UK government will not record a murder as a murder until a conviction has been secured. This is probably true for most EU states.
In the USA a murder is recorded as such once the body has been found and other causes of death ruled out.
Do try to keep up.

So that would really only effect the numbers if a conviction is never secured. Are you saying they have far fewer homicides and let all the murderers go? Seems very unlikely.

Does Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan all do the same thing?

The unsolved crime rate in the UK is astronomical.
Most murders are not prioritized.
Those with political value are.

The STEPHEN LAWRENCE case, the biggest murder inquiry in UK history.
No conviction secured.

Please share some real stats that they have a high unsolved crime rate.

Also what about every other developed country that has much lower homicide rates? They have bad stats too?

 

[JoeB131]

[
The unsolved crime rate in the UK is astronomical.
Most murders are not prioritized.
Those with political value are.

The STEPHEN LAWRENCE case, the biggest murder inquiry in UK history.
No conviction secured.

This is a 20 year old case. If you have to go back 20 years to find a murder case that was mishandled by authorties, you are really stretching it.

 

[rightwinger]

We do not have the highest murder rates.
We are just honest in the way we compile the numbers.
The UK government will not record a murder as a murder until a conviction has been secured. This is probably true for most EU states.
In the USA a murder is recorded as such once the body has been found and other causes of death ruled out.
Do try to keep up.

So that would really only effect the numbers if a conviction is never secured. Are you saying they have far fewer homicides and let all the murderers go? Seems very unlikely.

Does Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan all do the same thing?

The unsolved crime rate in the UK is astronomical.
Most murders are not prioritized.
Those with political value are.

The STEPHEN LAWRENCE case, the biggest murder inquiry in UK history.
No conviction secured.

Bull Shit

They have Sherlock Holmes

 

[eflatminor]

1. The more guns option. Don't see this making much of a difference. Anyone who wants a gun already has 10.

There you go lying again. Nothing in my #1 point calls for more guns, only the removal of impediments that prevent people from defending themselves. Please, stop lying. It doesn't help your case.



And how'd that gun free zone thing work out? About the same as at the Colorado theater, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and all the other places where maniacs choose to murder innocents?

What you obtusely choose to overlook is that my first suggestion would have also meant that the people could have had the means to defend themselves rather than cowering in the corner waiting for a good guy with a gun to arrive and save their ass.



If business owners are forced to serve everyone and anyone that walks through their doors, even if that means violating the tenants of their religion, then you sure as shit can't make a case that a person should be refused service based on a right codified in the Bill of Rights.

You want to return to the days of strict private property rights? Then fine, I'm all for allowing businesses to define who and what can be brought on to their property. But you can't have it both ways.



Stop being obtuse. I CLEARLY stated that we should not imprison people for consensual activity between adults, which would free up the vast majority of jail space and resources. Further, we spend ungodly amounts of money on violent recidivist criminals, far more than if we would have locked them up long term instead of releasing them time and time again only to be recaptured, retried, re-sentenced and reincarnated. Stop the cycle and we'd save significant resources...and lives.



You seem to have no problem with the cost of implementing vast bureaucracies to restrict second amendment rights. Now you have a fiscal issue? Please. The money could be easily found with common sense prioritization.

4. Sounds ok at first. Will non crazies find themselves locked up for political reasons? Seems ripe for abuse. Also infringes on a much more important right.

Like I said, that's not an easy one, but clearly, we need to reevaluate when a person's mental illness makes him a danger to others and worthy of detainment. You have no problem stamping all over second amendment rights, but other rights are sacrosanct? How about a little consistency?

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing.

I NEVER called for more guns. You are in fact lying by saying "it's trying to get more guns out there".

Are you keeping background checks? Why do you want people to have whatever guns they want? Studies show you only need 2-3 shots for defense and the type of gun really doesn't matter. The only people using hi cap magazines are mass shooters. You don't want require concealed carry permits. Will that lead to more accidents due to no training? In 2010 there were 600 unintentional injuries with firearms.

Bullshit. I used standard AR15 magazines for varmint hunting, hog hunting, shooting sports competition, and yes, home defense. You lied again.

It's not your job to tell others what activities might lead to accidents. Nobody's harming or taking from you, so please, mind your own damn business.

So the security guards couldn't stop them but your certain that a CC would?

The security guards were dead before they could respond. You're presenting a false choice...akin to another lie.

Put it this way: If you were cowering in the corner of a gun free zone while some crazy was murdering innocent people and I was next to you with a .45, about to take aim and shoot the bastard, what would you say? "No, you shouldn't do that...I don't like guns?" Please.

There was at least one armed person at the Tucson shooting, but he picked out the wrong person. The shooter was stopped when he tried to reload. Wouldn't lower capacity magazines be more of a help?

Wouldn't an armed good guy there to shoot the bastard BEFORE he had to reload been even MORE of a help? Why yes it would!

I'm more talking about company employees. Companies don't want armed employees. I doubt you can name a large company that allows employees to carry guns. I don't think you'd ever get them to be ok with it.

Too bad for those companies. They're CHOOSING to be victims. I will make no such choice.

So how many people have concealed carry permits?
Texas : 1 per about every 44 people.
New York: 1 per 210 people.
Minnesota: 1 per 35 people.
California: 1 per 1000 people.

So if you work in a smaller office of say 30 people your plan is unlikely to have a CC owner. In CA it would have almost no effect. MN might help more than other places. What are your thoughts on those numbers? Would the gun carries try to stop the shooter or use it to help get themselves out of there? I'm quickly losing faith in the heroism of people.

Then arm yourself. Why is God's name are you relying on others for you personal protection?

2. Ok so let out the no victim criminals and keep more of the violent ones in for longer. I'm not a fan of locking people up for victimless crime. Can't hurt. But again we have a lot of people in jail already for violent crimes.

3. I looked around and many of the countries with lower homicide rates were at 300 police per capita while we are like 250. I agree with your proposal to add more.

4. I think the right to not be in jail is the most important one we have. You really have no freedom if your in jail. So yes I put that one up pretty high. My own plan is to take their guns and make it so they can't buy guns. Putting in jail is more effective I guess, but is very difficult and scary if abused. I don't disagree with it but would need to be discussed in great detail.

One thing you've not touched on that I think is important and you might agree with. I think it's important to shut down the borders. We need to deport any criminal type illegals and close down the border. Your thoughts?

Borders are a separate issue. The vast majority of murders are carried out in a few neighborhoods by American citizens in gangs. Illegals are not doing mass killings.

Bottom line, you're well intended, feel good "solutions" do nothing to prevent bad guys from doing bad things. Why you think preventing good people from effectively defending themselves is beyond me.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I carry a handgun because cops are too heavy.

 

[Brain357]

The unsolved crime rate in the UK is astronomical.
Most murders are not prioritized.
Those with political value are.

The STEPHEN LAWRENCE case, the biggest murder inquiry in UK history.
No conviction secured.

Please share some real stats that they have a high unsolved crime rate.

Also what about every other developed country that has much lower homicide rates? They have bad stats too?

Who knows!
Stats may not be available due to restrictions in place by UK govnt.
The serious and organized crimes act outlaws criticism of the government, being in possession of such data way be a criminal act for a reporting agency.

So you have no stats. Surprising.

 

[Brain357]

There you go lying again. Nothing in my #1 point calls for more guns, only the removal of impediments that prevent people from defending themselves. Please, stop lying. It doesn't help your case.



And how'd that gun free zone thing work out? About the same as at the Colorado theater, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and all the other places where maniacs choose to murder innocents?

What you obtusely choose to overlook is that my first suggestion would have also meant that the people could have had the means to defend themselves rather than cowering in the corner waiting for a good guy with a gun to arrive and save their ass.



If business owners are forced to serve everyone and anyone that walks through their doors, even if that means violating the tenants of their religion, then you sure as shit can't make a case that a person should be refused service based on a right codified in the Bill of Rights.

You want to return to the days of strict private property rights? Then fine, I'm all for allowing businesses to define who and what can be brought on to their property. But you can't have it both ways.



Stop being obtuse. I CLEARLY stated that we should not imprison people for consensual activity between adults, which would free up the vast majority of jail space and resources. Further, we spend ungodly amounts of money on violent recidivist criminals, far more than if we would have locked them up long term instead of releasing them time and time again only to be recaptured, retried, re-sentenced and reincarnated. Stop the cycle and we'd save significant resources...and lives.



You seem to have no problem with the cost of implementing vast bureaucracies to restrict second amendment rights. Now you have a fiscal issue? Please. The money could be easily found with common sense prioritization.



Like I said, that's not an easy one, but clearly, we need to reevaluate when a person's mental illness makes him a danger to others and worthy of detainment. You have no problem stamping all over second amendment rights, but other rights are sacrosanct? How about a little consistency?

1. You can call it what you want, but it's trying to get more guns out there. I'm lying about nothing.

I NEVER called for more guns. You are in fact lying by saying "it's trying to get more guns out there".



Bullshit. I used standard AR15 magazines for varmint hunting, hog hunting, shooting sports competition, and yes, home defense. You lied again.

It's not your job to tell others what activities might lead to accidents. Nobody's harming or taking from you, so please, mind your own damn business.



The security guards were dead before they could respond. You're presenting a false choice...akin to another lie.

Put it this way: If you were cowering in the corner of a gun free zone while some crazy was murdering innocent people and I was next to you with a .45, about to take aim and shoot the bastard, what would you say? "No, you shouldn't do that...I don't like guns?" Please.



Wouldn't an armed good guy there to shoot the bastard BEFORE he had to reload been even MORE of a help? Why yes it would!



Too bad for those companies. They're CHOOSING to be victims. I will make no such choice.

So how many people have concealed carry permits?
Texas : 1 per about every 44 people.
New York: 1 per 210 people.
Minnesota: 1 per 35 people.
California: 1 per 1000 people.

So if you work in a smaller office of say 30 people your plan is unlikely to have a CC owner. In CA it would have almost no effect. MN might help more than other places. What are your thoughts on those numbers? Would the gun carries try to stop the shooter or use it to help get themselves out of there? I'm quickly losing faith in the heroism of people.

Then arm yourself. Why is God's name are you relying on others for you personal protection?

2. Ok so let out the no victim criminals and keep more of the violent ones in for longer. I'm not a fan of locking people up for victimless crime. Can't hurt. But again we have a lot of people in jail already for violent crimes.

3. I looked around and many of the countries with lower homicide rates were at 300 police per capita while we are like 250. I agree with your proposal to add more.

4. I think the right to not be in jail is the most important one we have. You really have no freedom if your in jail. So yes I put that one up pretty high. My own plan is to take their guns and make it so they can't buy guns. Putting in jail is more effective I guess, but is very difficult and scary if abused. I don't disagree with it but would need to be discussed in great detail.

One thing you've not touched on that I think is important and you might agree with. I think it's important to shut down the borders. We need to deport any criminal type illegals and close down the border. Your thoughts?

Borders are a separate issue. The vast majority of murders are carried out in a few neighborhoods by American citizens in gangs. Illegals are not doing mass killings.

Bottom line, you're well intended, feel good "solutions" do nothing to prevent bad guys from doing bad things. Why you think preventing good people from effectively defending themselves is beyond me.

Would you keep background checks?

You must be a really bad shot if you need an ar15 for those uses.

 

[Brain357]

50% of crimes in the UK go unsolved according to hyper protective nanny state stats.
The true number is likely 90%

On a given Saturday night there are hundreds of violent assaults in the UK.
Rare will police accept a complaint.
If a crime goes unreported it don't make the records, it didn't happen.
Indeed police in the UK have refused point blank to allow me to report crimes that I have been subject to on several occasions.
Many folk I know have had the same experience.
50% of crimes are unsolved | UK | News | Daily Express

That's not the whole uk. And the other countries?

 

[eflatminor]

Would you keep background checks?

Many states require background checks. They happen to be states with high murder rates. They don't work. Never will.

You must be a really bad shit if you need an ar15 for those uses.

It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Brain357]

Would you keep background checks?

Many states require background checks. They happen to be states with high murder rates. They don't work. Never will.

You must be a really bad shit if you need an ar15 for those uses.

It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

So no, you'd let felons buy guns. More more guns. You'd do much more damage than good.

So you don't need it. My point is made.

 

[eflatminor]

If a crime goes unreported it don't make the records, it didn't happen.
Indeed police in the UK have refused point blank to allow me to report crimes that I have been subject to on several occasions.
Many folk I know have had the same experience.

You can add me to that list. I lived in the UK for 6 years. Twice I tried to report a crime and was told 'no thanks'. If the police in the UK don't catch someone red handed, or have little hope of finding someone after the fact, they won't take the police report and therefore, no crime is recorded. Exactly the opposite of how crime is recorded in the US.

Further, despite that approach, England has a higher violent crime rate than the US.

 

[Brain357]

50% of crimes in the UK go unsolved according to hyper protective nanny state stats.
The true number is likely 90%

On a given Saturday night there are hundreds of violent assaults in the UK.
Rare will police accept a complaint.
If a crime goes unreported it don't make the records, it didn't happen.
Indeed police in the UK have refused point blank to allow me to report crimes that I have been subject to on several occasions.
Many folk I know have had the same experience.
50% of crimes are unsolved | UK | News | Daily Express

That's not the whole uk. And the other countries?

What other countries?
I only mentioned the UK.

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Japan.....

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Geaux4it]

-Geaux