agrees!
Vociferous obviously has no idea what he is talking about and is allowing his pro-gun agenda to get the better of him.
A Gun control solution - perhaps
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Vociferous obviously has no idea what he is talking about and is allowing his pro-gun agenda to get the better of him.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
No diversion at all. You're simple solution just fails to account for a wide range of issued involved. I'm a guy, so I have little fear of rape. But I do care enough about women in general to want to see them able to protect themselves when good guys aren't around. You seem pretty blase about it.
No significant number of US citizens have threatened "bloody revolution" since the civil war. That they would seems to be an irrational fear of your own.
You also seem to conflate one of the original purposes of the 2nd Amendment with the current motivation to keep it. You're ignoring the latter by insisting on only arguing the former. You're argument is outdated and largely irrelevant, since personal self-defense is the primary interest, not worry about tyranny.
That is only the "fundamental driver behind the call to defend the 2nd amendment" that the left recognizes. Maybe you should broaden your sources about US news and people.
How has Australia dealt with the increasing rapes after getting rid of guns? Doesn't seem to be working too well. Your opinion of statistics is just that, an opinion arguing against statistics. You really think more armed women would put more guns into the hands of criminals? How would that happen?
"Could" doesn't mean "does." It's actually pretty sick to hope that there are actually more rapes than reported, but that seems to be what you're hanging your argument on. And maybe you should have read some of those links I just posted.
Australia has one of the highest rates of reported sexual assault in the world, but support workers say the number of offenders facing court and receiving prison sentences is too low.
In NSW there were 3,951 separate sexual offence incidents reported to police in 2013. In that year 715 people were charged and 374 were found guilty, a conviction rate of 52 per cent for the state.
Of those 374 found guilty, a total of 168 people received a full time prison sentence, representing approximately four per cent of the incidents originally reported to police.
The figures show the likelihood of a sexual assault offender serving a prison sentence is pretty low, especially because it's believed that most sexual assault incidents are not reported to police.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sexual-assault-how-common-is-it-in-australia
So not only do rapists often avoid conviction and rarely receive full sentences, that likely contributes to under-reported rapes in Australia. The complete opposite of your argument. In NSW there were 3,951 separate sexual offence incidents reported to police in 2013. In that year 715 people were charged and 374 were found guilty, a conviction rate of 52 per cent for the state.
Of those 374 found guilty, a total of 168 people received a full time prison sentence, representing approximately four per cent of the incidents originally reported to police.
The figures show the likelihood of a sexual assault offender serving a prison sentence is pretty low, especially because it's believed that most sexual assault incidents are not reported to police.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sexual-assault-how-common-is-it-in-australia
I would grant you that open carriers and people who advertise it a lot are more likely to fit that mold, but teachers would, by necessity, be neither. If you think teachers would have a lower degree of responsibility as hunters and sport shooters, then you have a very low estimation of the people we trust to educate and watch our children. Gun ownership and concealed carry have increased massively while gun violence has remained largely static or dropped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
https://medium.com/@BMMorris/the-united-states-does-not-need-stricter-gun-control-159795c84862
But at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/
Yes, I guess people without them would consider basic human rights and freedoms insane. Trusting others with that much freedom must be awfully scary to those not accustom to it, or afraid of what they would do with it.
You ignore history if you think a recall process would stop a tyranny.
Glad you can find some moral support. You seem to need it.
are you suggesting that bloody revolution can only happen if it is enshrined in a constitution?
If you are, you seem to be ignorant of basic human history.
Do you think the citizens of the USA need to have the right to bloody revolution included as a constitutional right?
I actually do believe that sometime stating an obvious and making it legal makes sense in a way. As a legal provision of last resort.
Thus I am not suggesting any change to the 2nd amendment.
However having an updated constitution that has procedural methods to avoid the need for a bloody revolution, of a last resort, would be a good thing would it not?
I am not here to discuss you inability to think beyond a single pro-gun dimension, so I'll pass ... thank you...
Actually in combination with the 2nd amendment, the inclusion of empowering the people to force the government to the polls via referendum would suffice admirably IMO
The point though, is to deal with the fear of tyranny through law rather than emotion and vested interest.
The USA runs by the rule of law does it not?
A law that allowed, via certain specific conditions, the ability for the people to force a government to the polls would then prevent the need for bloody revolution and ultimately safeguard and reinforce the democratic process.
I would also be very confident that the proposition I am making would be very popular with USA citizens as it provides a legal safety net against a tyrannical government forcing itself upon the will of the people.
Last edited:
no were not blase about it your just well stupid about. when women get guns to protect them selves from domestic abusers and the like which most rapes like 90 percent of them are someone the victim knows are like 3 times more likely to be used to kill her than protect her.
just when i cant think you possible get dumber you up and prove that yep you can. i read your links your just really fucking bad at understanding statistic in context. any jackass can read them but you actually have to think to figure out what they mean and their limitations. i'm not hoping that their are more unreported rapes im just aware of the fact that they are that doesn't mean im hoping for more rape.
not really. if you could actually fucking think instead of you know regurgitating talking points you'd realize that thats every where including the US of A. my point was comparing and contrasting that the higher reported rape rate in australia might mean a greater percentage of rapes in general are being reported. time to use alegbra
if x and y are equal to the total percentages of rapes x reported and y unreported X+Y=100
no lets say R is the rate of reported rates and U is unreported rapes and T is total rapes makes R+U=T
and R is =X U=Y and T=100 if Y goes down R is going to go up naturally.
its not so much a manner of responsibility but training. if the NYPD who are trained only hit what they aim at 18% of they time untrained teachers are going to much worse. thats a lot of shots hitting something else.
once again your showing my point about statistics first off gun ownership is actualy declining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
https://medium.com/@BMMorris/the-united-states-does-not-need-stricter-gun-control-159795c84862
But at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/
.[/QUOTE] once again your showing my point about statistics first off gun ownership is actually declining. the guns per a person is a mean which is highly influenced by outliers. the guy with the arsenal is his basement skews that. only 22% in one survey. less people own guns but they own more. basicly guns are getting hoarded into the least stable hands.http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/
look at the set of numbers
3,5,7,10,11,12,100 the mean is 21.14 the median is 10 which number represents the set better?
gun ownership has been declining as we become an increasing urban and suburban culture. also when i was talking about the increase violence i was going back much further that mid to late 70's. think like a century.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Of course not. There is no US "right to bloody revolution." There is only an armed population as both deterrent and defense against threats, whether foreign or domestic. Your hyperbole just makes you sound uninformed.
We already have recall elections for governors in control of state National Guard. We have federal law prohibiting the deployment of full-time military in any state without said governor's approval. And states would likely rally their National Guard units for any state violated by that law, knowing they could be next. And the DC National Guard and regular military would protect the federal government from attack. So your paranoia about a new American revolution is overblown, and your roundabout on the 2nd Amendment is pointless.
There is no palpable fear of tyranny here. Since you completely ignored any argument about what really motivates gun-rights people, I can only assume you're determined to stick with this straw man. That makes your continued argument willfully irrelevant.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
That figure only holds for children and women in college. Only 60% overall report the perpetrator being previously known to them.
So you're telling the other 40%, and all those who leave dangerous relationships, to just sod off and take it?
A lot of invective, but no argument to be found in that little diatribe.
No, when the reported rapes are 13 times more in Australia than the US, making Australia ranked first in the world for rape, AND they are very under-reported, you would have to postulate a US under-reporting far greater to even come close. There is zero reason to believe that more rapes are reported when so few perpetrators face prosecution and full sentences. That makes reporting a rape a higher risk to the victim, who could suffer social repercussions from a failed rape accusation.
The traumatic experience of the court system has also been blamed for the high rate of underreporting, with one Canberra support worker describing rape as “the most underreported crime in our community”.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sexual-assault-how-common-is-it-in-australia
And you playing at math doesn't change a thing when the total rapes are higher in Australia and there's no reason to expect a higher rate of reporting than elsewhere.https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sexual-assault-how-common-is-it-in-australia
Do you really imaging them just firing down a hall full of students? Again, the people we trust to teach and watch our children?
Like anyone else, the priorities are, in order, run, hide/barricade, fight. They would only resort to a gun with the surrounding children behind them.
And giving the accuracy for police isn't an argument for both waiting for and relying solely on them in an emergency.
You have no data to support that claim.
But carry permits have risen dramatically. You have to show me stats on whatever increased violence you're talking about.
They're at least as serious as the average teacher is likely to be.
And far more serious than you appear, with your trivialization of what you are asking teachers to accomplish.
Consider the situation of a Secret Service bodyguard drafted to teach algebra fulltime to large classes of children - while remaining on duty.
And if you knew the first thing about classrooms full of children, you'd have a clue about how much you are underestimating the hazards and expenses of the situation you are promoting, and overestimating its benefits.
The common first reaction I've been seeing from teachers confronted with this notion is something like this: "Where am I going to keep the gun while I'm teaching?" There is no safe place in the classroom.
As long as the topic has come up, we might spend a little time considering what the armed teachers's response should be - after sufficient training, weeks of it, of course - to aberrant and unstable behavior on the part of another armed teacher. We have seen recent incidents of teachers barricading themselves inside classrooms in states of mental confusion, for example.
Bells
Staff member
And now for reality:
Women are much more likely to be fatally hurt by a gun than saved by one. Women who live in abusive situations are considered at grave risk when a gun is in the home – no matter who owns it – and women killed by their partners are more likely to be murdered with a gun than all other weapons combined. (Loesch and the NRA know this, of course, yet have lobbied for years against measures that would keep guns out of abusers’ hands.)
This is especially important considering that the vast majority of sexual assaults aren’t committed by strangers lurking in bushes, but by acquaintances, friends, and even loved ones.
[...]
In fact, women who have tried to protect themselves from sexual or domestic violence haven’t been lauded as second-amendment heroes – they’ve been arrested.
Marissa Alexander was sent to prison after firing just a warning shot at her abusive husband. Bresha Meadows was just 14 years old when she shot her father in an attempt to protect her family from him – she was charged with aggravated murder. In both cases, not a peep was heard from the NRA. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that neither Meadows or Alexander is white.
This is especially important considering that the vast majority of sexual assaults aren’t committed by strangers lurking in bushes, but by acquaintances, friends, and even loved ones.
[...]
In fact, women who have tried to protect themselves from sexual or domestic violence haven’t been lauded as second-amendment heroes – they’ve been arrested.
Marissa Alexander was sent to prison after firing just a warning shot at her abusive husband. Bresha Meadows was just 14 years old when she shot her father in an attempt to protect her family from him – she was charged with aggravated murder. In both cases, not a peep was heard from the NRA. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that neither Meadows or Alexander is white.
Why are you so nonchalant about increasing the risk of women dying?
In fact, why are you so nonchalant with arguing that guns stop rapes, when the reality is that throwing a gun into the mix is more likely to result in the woman dying?
Peddling the myth that guns stop rape, when the reality is that the presence of a gun is more likely to see the rape victim killed, like peddling the myth that it is up to the woman to not be raped, is dangerous and idiotic. So please stop doing it.
Australia's rape and sexual assault statistics is not because we have less guns. Our problems delve into deep and dark places in regards to society, women's rights and primarily, how men who rape are viewed. Adding guns to the mix would just result in more women dying.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
solving the control of guns...
solving guns with control...
controlling solutions with guns...
solutions of gun control...
solution controls & guns...
controls, solutions, guns...
why does USA society need guns to control its culture ?
solving guns with control...
controlling solutions with guns...
solutions of gun control...
solution controls & guns...
controls, solutions, guns...
why does USA society need guns to control its culture ?
It's a heritage thing.
control is the word describing
priority of those who fear while
solution is not even a fantasy but
keyword of a market generating
murmur and buzz while there is
no such thing as a solution
without definition of what is solved
and it is not really the role by which
markets care of life or death except
as commodity somewhere else out there
or ledger entry as projection
if the question and priority at hand is
simply how to keep blood off the carpet
and we should never ask why we require
blood spilt but rather argue who shall be
given in sacrifice to bleed and die and
appease the idols of our heritage
priority of those who fear while
solution is not even a fantasy but
keyword of a market generating
murmur and buzz while there is
no such thing as a solution
without definition of what is solved
and it is not really the role by which
markets care of life or death except
as commodity somewhere else out there
or ledger entry as projection
if the question and priority at hand is
simply how to keep blood off the carpet
and we should never ask why we require
blood spilt but rather argue who shall be
given in sacrifice to bleed and die and
appease the idols of our heritage
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
i like your poem.
it does seem odd from a spectators view to see millionaire draft dodgers climbing on the backs of dead working class soldiers whom get paid 25k a year.
while the millionaire draft dodgers preach how money cant buy anything and death to all descenters, while gulf-war-syndrome, PTSD military suicide and medication bills all go unpaid by the very same millionaire draft dodgers.
it reminds me of the mentality of the spanish inquisition.
Why do gun control proponents continually rely on misleading and misrepresented statistics?
There are perfectly good arguments to be made with sound numbers honestly presented.
Decent couple of examples, though, of women successfully defending themselves with guns. Notice that in the one case - as in most legit self defense by gun - nobody got shot.
One of the most effective kinds of gun control laws proposed (and in places enacted and enforced) is the mandatory surrender of firearms by someone convicted of domestic abuse or assault. That can be expanded - Constitutionally - to include temporary surrender by those subject to restraining orders or other formal designations of risk in a domestic violence case, pending adjudication of crime.
Such laws usually have majority citizen support - not quite as overwhelming as the background checks and machine gun bans, but solidly over half.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
soo children should have guns to protect themselves against school bullies ?
Bells
Staff member
Then please present them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448464/
That study was quite interesting. You should check it out.
And then there is this:
A woman is far more likely to be the victim of a handgun homicide than to use a handgun in a justifiable homicide. A study found that for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate partner in self-defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate partner with a handgun. In general, firearms are rarely used in self-defense by victims of violent crimes. From 2007 to 2011, crime victims engaged in selfprotective behaviors that involved a firearm in only 0.8% of the cases.
And this:
The Violence Policy Center looked at FBI crime data from 2015, the most recent year available. It’s the first analysis of the 2015 data on female homicide victims. The study found there were 328 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens that year, and only 16 involved a woman killing a man with a gun. Conversely, there were 1,686 cases where a woman was murdered by a man with a gun. Those are only single-victim, single-offender incidents, and exclude mass shootings, so if anything it’s an undercount. (Domestic abuse that turns deadly can end up claiming many victims beyond the targeted woman, like the incident in Texas this monthwhere a gunman showed up at his estranged wife’s house and killed her and eight other people who were attending a football party.)
Contrary to Cox’s formulation of a random, armed bad guy crashing through the living-room window, a vast majority of those 1,686 homicides were domestic in nature. Ninety-three percent of the female victims were murdered by a man they knew, and 64 percent were wives or “intimate acquaintances” of the man that killed them. (This does not include ex-girlfriends; the FBI does not break that down.)
Critics might point out that this study counts only justifiable homicides but not incidents where a woman may have otherwise used a gun to defend herself without killing the male attacker—either by non-fatally wounding him, or just waving the gun around. That’s a fair point, though on the flip side, this also doesn’t count the women who are non-fatally injured by men with guns, nor intimidated by them.
The study’s homicide-to-homicide comparison just buttresses a lot of social-science research that unambiguously states that the introduction of a firearm to a home only increases the chance someone will be killed, particularly a woman. A 1997 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine looked at women’s risk factors for violent death in their home, and found that the risk increased threefold when a gun was present inside the house. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that, not surprisingly, domestic incidents where a gun is used means it’s 12 times more likely that someone dies.
The high rate at which women are killed by guns is a uniquely American problem. In 25 high-income countries, America accounts for only 32 percent of the female population. But they are 84 percent of all female firearm homicide victims.
Contrary to Cox’s formulation of a random, armed bad guy crashing through the living-room window, a vast majority of those 1,686 homicides were domestic in nature. Ninety-three percent of the female victims were murdered by a man they knew, and 64 percent were wives or “intimate acquaintances” of the man that killed them. (This does not include ex-girlfriends; the FBI does not break that down.)
Critics might point out that this study counts only justifiable homicides but not incidents where a woman may have otherwise used a gun to defend herself without killing the male attacker—either by non-fatally wounding him, or just waving the gun around. That’s a fair point, though on the flip side, this also doesn’t count the women who are non-fatally injured by men with guns, nor intimidated by them.
The study’s homicide-to-homicide comparison just buttresses a lot of social-science research that unambiguously states that the introduction of a firearm to a home only increases the chance someone will be killed, particularly a woman. A 1997 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine looked at women’s risk factors for violent death in their home, and found that the risk increased threefold when a gun was present inside the house. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that, not surprisingly, domestic incidents where a gun is used means it’s 12 times more likely that someone dies.
The high rate at which women are killed by guns is a uniquely American problem. In 25 high-income countries, America accounts for only 32 percent of the female population. But they are 84 percent of all female firearm homicide victims.
You can access the Violence Policy Center study here:
The U.S. Department of Justice has found that women are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes committed by intimate partners than men, especially when a weapon is involved. Moreover, women are much more likely to be victimized at home than in any other place.5
A woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own guns acquired them “primarily for protection against crime,” the results of a California analysis show that “purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner homicide.”6 A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.7 Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.8
While this study does not focus solely on domestic violence homicide or guns, it provides a stark reminder that domestic violence and guns make a deadly combination. According to reports submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), firearms are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.9 Instead, they are all too often used to inflict harm on the very people they were intended to protect.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2015 there were only 328 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens. Of these, only 23 involved women killing men. Of those, only 16 involved firearms, with 14 of the 16 involving handguns. While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenarios of lethal gun use in America in 2015, the most recent final data available, are suicide (22,018), homicide (12,979), or fatal unintentional injury (489).
A woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own guns acquired them “primarily for protection against crime,” the results of a California analysis show that “purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner homicide.”6 A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.7 Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.8
While this study does not focus solely on domestic violence homicide or guns, it provides a stark reminder that domestic violence and guns make a deadly combination. According to reports submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), firearms are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.9 Instead, they are all too often used to inflict harm on the very people they were intended to protect.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2015 there were only 328 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens. Of these, only 23 involved women killing men. Of those, only 16 involved firearms, with 14 of the 16 involving handguns. While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenarios of lethal gun use in America in 2015, the most recent final data available, are suicide (22,018), homicide (12,979), or fatal unintentional injury (489).
Unfortunately the majority are not so lucky. As the studies show.
Yes. And?
I mean, aside from stating the obvious..?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
We don't. Even our laws do not control our culture. We leave that to the media----knowing full well that the media censors are all completely insane.
1st amendment
wow
speak about a amendment in the bill of rights---------that one may well do more damage to the psyche of the nation than any enemy could possibly do.
Maybe 30-40 years ago, a defense attorney in Florida(i think) tried to use violence on tv as a defense for his client(desensitizing-etc...)----------curious thing about our media--they often tell us the beginning of a story and never come back with it's conclusion.
Our current leader(who seems to no longer want the epithet, "leader of the free world" added to potus) seems to understand that constant exposure to vicarious violence can lead to acts of violence(as/per recent comments).
And therein(much as in the 2nd) lies the conundrum: How does one go about curbing the negative aspects of a "right" without infringing upon that right?
Well, given the difference between shooting an unarmed black man because one thought he had a gun and cops bending over backward to not shoot the white guy shooting at them, the question of controlling the culture remains.
The idea of "gun control", however, is kind of silly; it's a scare word that is more accessible than "people control" in the same way "suicide bomber" is more accurate than "homicide bomber" if one intends to exclude military pilots flying honorable missions from the term. That is to say, sure, people will object to "people control", but at some point they must admit they want people control. You know, like more black men in prison cells or cold ground. So while it really is a manner of "people control"—remember, even firearm advocates believe this, as evidenced by their obsession with civilizing society by arming everyone—nobody likes to admit it because that includes white people the way "homicide bomber" included American, Israeli, and other military personnel operating ostensibly honorable missions.
Well, sure, but in the context of "homicide bomber", I fully confess that Israel and FOX News are insufficient influences to convince me that we should hold the average USAF officer on par with the guy whose head IDF pulled out of the broken roof of the bus shelter he blew up.
(I would ask the Canadians, but they can't answer after we dropped the bomb on them.)
(Same thing with the British, although we apparently needed to finish the job on the second pass.)
(Even in such cases as that one guy from Nevada, the Army grunt who came home and got a police job and then lost it after boasting about the time Iraqis tried using a line of human shields so he gunned down a pregnant woman, it seems to me there's still a difference. The Israeli/FNC campaign was not well considered.)
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Despite internet mythology to the contrary the numbers show that police kill ~3 a day in the US, for all reasons, justified, unjustified, accidental, undetermined, etc. So on any given day an American has >1 chance in 100,000,000 of being killed by a police officer.