Florida School Shooting

[Mountain Man]

A woman trying to kill her husband is going to have an easier time of it with a gun than a knife. If you don't think so, then, again, this is just another one of these foundational issues I'm going to have to disagree with people on this forum about.

I see, so you're just going to ignore my point and the supporting data and reassert yours. Come on, Adrift, I thought you were more intellectually honest with than that.

As the crime data from the UK shows, if people can't get their hands on a gun then they'll simply use another means to carry out murder, in this case, knives appear to be the weapon of choice.

As for homicide rates in general:

Screen Shot 2018-02-27 at 3.22.47 PM.jpg
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...apter2homicide

Guns were banned in the UK in 1997, and you see a sharp increase in homicide in the decade following, and then a slow decline over the decade after that until rates returned to their pre-ban level and have only slightly declined since. It's really hard to make the case based on the data that banning guns will have any appreciable impact on homicide rates. In your scenario, a woman who wants to kill her husband will figure out a way, gun or no gun.

[rogue06]

Your permanent record!

No. When two members of the Defense Intelligence Agency visited my house wondering why I sent a letter to the Russian embassy asking for extremely detailed information on some of their naval ships.




It was for a report for school, and I got all the information straight out of Encyclopedia Britannica. As soon as they realized this they laughed, excused themselves and left. Still, they had to file a report and it became the first thing in my file. I had completely forgot about it until I saw it.

[Adrift]

Sure if you are angry and there is a gun, you would probably pick it up and use it. But if you are planning a murder, you would most likely use something quiet. Not a gun.

Have any data to back that?

[rogue06]

Have any data to back that?

He's speaking from experience

[Cow Poke]

The FOIA request I did awhile back revealed a folder as thick as my thumb is wide -- starting back when I was in Junior High!

When I was in the final interview prior to becoming a cop, the safety director, holding my file, looked over his glasses at me, and said, "OK, I promise this won't affect whether you get hired or not, but, I'm really curious...."

I waited...

he said, "did you REALLY weld a police car to a fire hydrant when you were in high school?"

(I always suspected they suspected me, but nobody ever asked me about it before)

[Adrift]

I see, so you're just going to ignore my point and the supporting data and reassert yours. Come on, Adrift, I thought you were more intellectually honest with than that.

As the crime data from the UK shows, if people can't get their hands on a gun then they'll simply use another means to carry out murder, in this case, knives appear to be the weapon of choice.

As for homicide rates in general:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26669[/ATTACH]
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...apter2homicide

Guns were banned in the UK in 1997, and you see a sharp increase in homicide in the decade following, and then a slow decline over the decade after that until rates returned to their pre-ban level and have only slightly declined since. It's really hard to make the case based on the data that banning guns will have any appreciable impact on homicide rates. In your scenario, a woman who wants to kill her husband will figure out a way, gun or no gun.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. I've never denied that people will sometimes use other methods to kill people if they don't have a gun. Killing someone with a knife is a lot harder to do than it is to kill someone with a gun. That should be basic common sense. I admitted to Little Joe that Britain's 12 year rise in homicide is interesting. The fact that the numbers are now below ban levels is also interesting.

[Sparko]

Have any data to back that?

Watching COPS and LivePD.

[Sparko]

He's speaking from experience

no. no experience here. None whatsoever. nope.

[Jedidiah]

I wonder how many of the other pro-gun posters would be willing to kill people to prevent reasonable laws from taking place. I guess you really aren't a criminal until you are, eh?

A bit of a distortion here. A large bit. Who has suggested killing to prevent REASONABLE laws from being enacted? Laws going against the Constitution are not legally reasonable.

[whag]

As the crime data from the UK shows, if people can't get their hands on a gun then they'll simply use another means to carry out murder, in this case, knives appear to be the weapon of choice.

[Jedidiah]

I mean, I support law enforcement. If, through legal constitutional means, total gun prohibition was enacted, then I support the gov. in enforcing laws. Do you not?

Total gun prohibition is not legal even if pseudo legal processes were used to pass such laws.

[Sparko]

right, because people typically keep loaded AR-15s in their living room. what?

[Jedidiah]

This is a fun game. That law couldn't be passed Constitutionally.

Nor could total gun banning be passed Constitutionally.

[Jedidiah]

And in response to President Trump describing Cruz as a "sicko"...

Source: CNN

Diana Rose, a professor of user-led research who studies mental health at King's College London [...] said that calling the shooter a "sicko" is "insulting" and "mean-minded."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/healt...-bn/index.html

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, we mustn't insult mass-murderers.

I agree with Diana. We should call the evil monsters, not sick monsters. Even if mental illness is involved. Most mental illness does not take away the knowledge of right and wrong.

[Jedidiah]

The reason why they are suffering is because they refuse to adapt to America's founding principles, which include self-reliance and self-sufficiency. They expect someone else to protect them and cower begging and crying when someone shows up with a gun. They can literally go anywhere else on the planet and get the awkward attempts at providing them with protection at the expense of personal autonomy and liberty that they crave.

Nevermind the absurdity of them refusing to use violence against the people killing them but you trying to justify its use against people who DO take steps to defend themselves.

IMO America should just expel you all. You, Adrift, and anyone else who expects the state to strip them of basic personal autonomy in exchange for vague protections against relatively small numbers of mostly avoidable killings. You are not really Americans and would fit much better literally anywhere else on the planet.


edit: looks like i fail to take my own advice from elsewhere, there's no reason to even accept the progressive frame where gun owners are to blame for school shootings and thus fair targets for retaliation in the first place.

Dangerous freedom versus safe (supposedly) slavery.