#291
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause.* But a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder.* Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just 3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... -- - Frank Krygowski |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
Am 21.04.2021 um 22:12 schrieb AMuzi:
Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. If nothing earns jail time in the USA, how come the USA has such a huge jail population compared to European countries? I can see only two possibilities: a) people get more jail time for similar offences in the USA than in Europe b) people in the USA commit significantly mroe serious offences than in Europe, and then the question is why. Rolf |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. Sturmgewehr are few and far between in crime reports. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Stolen pistols are another thing altogether. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 4:15 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 21.04.2021 um 22:12 schrieb AMuzi: Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. If nothing earns jail time in the USA, how come the USA has such a huge jail population compared to European countries? I can see only two possibilities: a) people get more jail time for similar offences in the USA than in Europe b) people in the USA commit significantly mroe serious offences than in Europe, and then the question is why. Rolf Interesting you should mention that. I read a piece a few months ago about 'sentencing disparity' which found that longer first imprisonment was almost entirely due to multiple priors with 'deferred sentence'. The judge has a small leeway within sentencing guidelines set by the relevant Justice Department (State or Federal). Prior criminal activity is an heavily weighted component. Outliers aside (there are always outliers to any large set) it's generally hard to get into a State prison on the first adventure. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 12:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:58:42 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:50:58 AM UTC-7, wrote: stupidity https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...iden-smallest/ Do you even know the above link you posted is a PRO FAVOR SUPPORT Trump website? And you think it is relevant to anything? On that website they have the following sentence "The polls are garbage, the current race is not even close. The rally numbers prove it. President Trump is way ahead of former VP Joe Biden." It was also published on November 3, 2020 at 9:37 AM. Before any votes were counted on election day. I hate to have to keep pointing things out to you but they run polls at all of the balloting places on a scientific manner. These are USUALLY correct. Trump's lead was in fact the largest Conservative count in history. What wasn't usual was the HUGE lead that Biden turned up with. There were NOT that many people that suddenly decided not only to vote but to vote for a man that had remained hidden for 8 months. If you don't realize that the Democrats threw an election there's no way it can be explained to you. Where I used to vote - just a quarter of a mile away, they totally changed to a spot 5 miles away and in a location that was almost invisible in the far back of a parking lot. There were NO SIGNS pointing to it. Older people simply couldn't get there. Previously you would fill out a ballot then walk over and insert the ballot into the machine yourself and the ballots would fall into a box which retained the ballots so they could be recounted if a recount demanded. This time after you filled out the ballot you carried it over and put it in a slow in the top of a soft-side suitcase NO ONE saw their ballot counted. This was done supposedly with bi-party inspectors but these people were not announced and who knows if they even bothered to count Republican ballots since they say right at the top of the page? NONE of this was necessary and we hadn't been ordered to lock-down or wear masks at that time. This was plainly a thrown election. |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 12:53:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:47:12 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 4:26:15 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:59:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 4/17/2021 5:35 PM, wrote: On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 4:08:53 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:46:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/16/2021 10:13 PM, AMuzi wrote: I don't own a television. Let's consult an expert: https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-ot...-doesnt-cover/ Not owning a television sounds like some nice virtue signaling. But repeatedly reading and quoting the New York Post as a source? That seems like effective negation. So you want to take guns away from honest law abiding Americans but you don't care that along American roads the illegal gangs are using fully automatic weapons and anti-tank weapons. But don't listen to the New York Post simply because they are the only one's reporting it. In 2019, 10,213 people in the USA were murdered by firearms. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/ In 2018, 10,265 murdered by firearms. In 2017, 11,006 murdered by firearms. In 2016, 10,372 murdered by firearms. In 2015, 9,103 murdered by firearms. In 2014, 7,803 murdered by firearms. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls I could not find any numbers for how many times the honest law abiding Americans used their guns to protect themselves and family and stop criminals. The stories about that subject were fraught with discrepancies. One study/article said between 500K and 2M times per year guns saved people. So 50 to 200 times the number murdered each year. 50 to 200 times more the good guys used guns than the bad guys just seems a bit hard to believe. If it were true it seems that the news hour would have to expand to news ten hour to cover all the times people were saved. And just a couple minutes to report the number of murders each day. But it seems the news today is about 15 minutes talking about all the people murdered each day. So I just don't know what the number of honest law abiding American gun owners is. There are about 600,000 Americans dead from Covid-19 now. Year or so after it started. That is 60 times greater than the number of people murdered with firearms in the USA each year. Don't know if that is good or bad.. But the virus seems to be even better at killing than guns. A comment on Tom's "honest law abiding" statement. In the numerous recent mass murders, the family and friends of the murderer were interviewed after the murders. In many cases the murderer was described by people who knew the murderer closely as being a good person. And the family or friends could not believe the mass murderer committed such an act. So maybe the term "honest law abiding" does not apply to as many people as we believe. And about 40,000 people die from hospital-acquired infection. That's a small subset of 'death by infection' and also a small subset of 'iatric error death'. And it's been growing. Papers are written, numbers are published, systems change is exhorted, everyone agrees it's preventable - physicians, administrators, staff and most importantly insurance carriers. Yet here we are, nearly 4x firearms homicides every year. Where's the breathless reportage on that? As to news coverage versus reality, yes we're a large diverse and (historically down to today) relatively violent country with some newsy mayhem or another every morning. https://newsbeyonddetroit.net/2021/0...tended-victim/ Yet no one gives one good god damn about a dozen or so black and latin gang members shooting each other every night in Chicago with a couple to a few deaths every night. It's often noted that the death-per-shooting rate has dropped only because of excellent combat surgeons in area hospitals. They get a lot of practice. It gets worse. Chicago is, while much smaller than in my youth, still a large city. The rates per population of St Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore and other medium cities are actually worse than Chicago. p.s. Credit's due to Mr Seaton for separating firearms homicide from suicide and negligent discharge, an often invoked conflation. Well, as the pro-gunners have often said, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and it is true. The argument that "well, if we limited gun ownership we would limit gun deaths" may, or may not be true, after all the largest mass murders committed in the U.S. Timothy McVeigh - 168 deaths, 9-11 - 2,977 deaths were not committed with guns. In the U.S. some 39% of families have one or more guns, in Norway the figure is 32% and in Switzerland 27%. The intestinal homicide rate in the U.S. 4.96/100,000, Norway is 0.47/100,000 and Switzerland it is 0.50/100,000. So, the U,S. with 21% more guns than Norway and 30% more then Switzerland commits 10.5 times as many murders then in Norway and 9.92 times the murders in Switzerland. The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per se, is not the cause of high murder rates.' May or may not be true? Well I suppose that the cities with absolutely the most strict gun laws just happen to be those with the largest amount of gun crimes. I suppose that is just a freak of the statistics. Tom, in this post and in the post immediately following this one, you are confusing "correlation" and "causation". This is a very common mistake. An example to illustrate your misinterpretation. Eating and obesity. A correlation. Not a causation. Usually, frequently, eating a lot correlates with being fat. But the true cause of obesity is consuming more calories than you burn and forcing your body to store the excess calories as fat. One can eat a lot and not be fat. Eating in and of itself does not cause obesity. You can eat a lot and run a marathon or ride a century (American century, not easy metric century) every day and not be obese. No one is surprised that you get things so screwed up. So according to you, you cannot get obese from overeating and you can be obese with controlled eating. That is WHY starving people are so fat. You do not understand the meaning of causation and correlation. All of the largest cities under Democrat Control and with the strongest gun laws HAVE the highest murder rates. THAT is a correlation. The causation is Democrats willing to accept high crime rates and do nothing about it. This is precisely what they are presently doing. Seattle and Portland have ruined the most beautiful cities on the west coast San Francisco is a dumping ground. I drove up to a local long climb, parked at the top and walked down the hill with a large garbage bag and cleaned all of the trash from along the side of the road. At the bottom I placed this bag in a spot where the garbage truck would pick it up. Less than one week later I rode up that climb and you could not tell that a thing had been done. Why do you suppose that is? Are drivers on that road the causation or is the trash some sort of correlation? |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause. But a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder.* Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just 3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000 rounds with him. But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10 round magazine for a fresh one. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun. Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that geometry over that of a classic long gun? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:12:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of course™. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Here firearms are divided into two categories - military and non-military. Military type firearms are forbidden for possession by all, except for military when ordered to be armed, and non-military firearms are controlled in some manner with licensing and I'm not familiar with the details although I do know that possession of firearm is limited to Thai citizens. Possession of a, say 1917 model colt .45 caliber pistol, which is considered a military firearm, will get you a jail term. An easy enough and probably logical division and there are precedence in the U.S. for similar practices dating back to 1934. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ted_fire arms As an aside, I be live that the NRA went bankrupt :-) https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/15/b...xas/index.html -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LETTER - This cycling thing is a crazy idea. A crazy good one | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 9 | July 18th 20 05:17 PM |
Bicycle-induced psychotropic effects, or Hey, that crazy dude really is crazy | [email protected] | Racing | 7 | February 8th 06 03:17 PM |
Start Buying on eBay - eBay Shopping Tips & Tricks | [email protected] | Marketplace | 1 | January 15th 06 03:02 PM |
Am I crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy? | Brian Walker | General | 9 | September 27th 05 05:54 AM |
Decathlon offers | John Hearns | UK | 7 | July 14th 04 08:06 PM |