10 people shot, 1 victim dead, at Detroit block party

[PHP87]

Blaming gun owners for being crime victims such as having their home burglarized and their firearms stolen is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Do you blame victims of car theft in the same manner, even if the car was used to commit a felony?

I bet you don't.

Stop blaming inanimate objects as that is a cop out and just grabbing the low hanging fruit.

Crime and violence are complex societal issues that would not magically disappear if guns were to suddenly disappear.

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The cop out is using the "guns don't kill people" catch-cry. It's a pat phrase that seems to make sense (and is thus attractive to those that can't think things through), but ignores the reality that in fact people-WITH-GUNS kill people. Take "guns" out of the equation, and those otherwise shooters don't kill people. If they didn't have the guns, most of the people that have died and will die, wouldn't be dead and won't die.

Saying that it's blaming an inanimate object is incorrect. It's not the gun, it's the existence of the gun. It's the existence of the guns in the hands of criminals, nutcases, angry, impatient, aggressive, drugged, or just plain stupid people....and there's lots of those around, as evidenced by the appalling death toll of innocent victims.

Heroin doesn't kill people, drug addicts kill themselves, so there should be no reason to place controls on heroin is your reasoning, and it's stupid.

Were I to assert that those who's opinions I reject "cannot think things through" or that their conclusion is a "cop out" because I see things differently, what would I really be saying? I would be asserting that because someone else looks at the comparable facts but reach different conclusions... because they do not reach the same conclusions I reach, they must necessarily have erred or lack the tools to deduce or infer properly. It is most certainly not a commentary worthy of a meaningful discourse.

Because I was not replying to you. I was replying to a chap that loves to call everyone who disagrees with him "infantile", "unintelligent", etc.

Somehow, I knew you'd take exception to my response to him.

You're assuming I took exception to your response.

I took exception to the straw-men you were setting up and then knocking down.

There is a difference between the two.

[arjunadawn]

I think it may be time to sterilize all convicted felons. Obviously, we have laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms so all the gun issues are moot. America has a prison population which breeds violence and there is nothing that can be done about it short of stopping the ability to procreate. This is a solution that may take a couple of generations but it is sure to do the trick. On top of it all, there are welfare issues that become solved as well.

We could stop having to bribe the entitled masses to leave the rest of us alone.

Sounds a bit like the dark ages but it does have promise.

What is the goal of sterilization? For those who are sexual offenders the benefit to society, I presume, is the decreased testosterone on the premise that sexual proclivities will correspondingly reduce. Should the violation of law with conviction and subsequent payment to society also have a corruption of blood where potential offspring are penalized for the actions of the parent? I realize that the crime environment is generational, in many cases, but how is a concept like this packaged without the Eugenics umbrella, a frightening prospect of slippery slopes and racial profiling to be sure. I am quite conservative but I can entertain an argument like this if rationalized and supported. The whole larger perspective is demonstrably associated with race but this is not even touched, it would be a further bridge to far to see such a concept, even if true for self preservation.

[7by7]

<snip>

In fact, crime would likely rise once criminals knew that no potential crime victim would be able to defend themselves.

Nothing more criminals fear than an armed citizen.

The following are taken from Comparisons of Crime in OECD Countries and are based on UN figures. They are for 2006, but I doubt they have changed significantly.

They show the police recorded cases per 100,000 population.

I am comparing the figures for the USA and Japan as Japan has one of the, if not the, toughest gun control laws in the world.

Intentional Homicide.

USA; 5.0

Japan; 0.5

Rape

USA; 28.6

Japan; 1.1

Robbery

USA; 133

Japan; 4

Assault

USA; 262

Japan; 44

Burglary

USA; 715

Japan; 117

Vehicle theft

USA; 258

Japan; 85

Seems that criminals are not that afraid of an armed citizenry after all!

[UKJASE]

7by7's post makes that stupid graph look even stupider now

[UKJASE]

do you think there is also a correlation between America's lax gun controls and so called rights to defend oneself, and the country's desire to go to war with other countries for reasons that are very often questionable?

which cultural trait came first i wonder?

Edited June 23, 2015 by UKJASE

[chuckd]

Perhaps Japan became considerably less war like when they surrendered to the US in 1945.

Your comparison is ridiculous. The cultures of the two nations are complete opposites.

[PHP87]

And Japan has 3x the suicide rate than the US

Just goes to show how "silly" it is to compare one country to another.

Specious argument and epic fail.

Instead of punishing the 99.9999% of gun owners that will never shoot anyone unless it is to defend life or property, why not make lengthy prison sentences mandatory for using a gun while committing a crime?

10 years first offense. No plea bargains, no time off for good behavior, no weights to work out with, no nothing but being in a cell 23 hours per day for 10 years.

20 years for subsequent conviction.

Life without parole for a third conviction.

That's what I call "Common sense gun laws"

Anyone have issues with that?

Because the "catch and release" program being used in mostly left-leaning US cities isn't working.

[PHP87]

do you think there is also a correlation between America's lax gun controls and so called rights to defend oneself, and the country's desire to go to war with other countries for reasons that are very often questionable?

which cultural trait came first i wonder?

Talk about silly...

And "so-called rights"?

We have something called "The Bill of Rights"

In the Bill of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution

Those rights include freedom of speech, freedom to practice your religion, freedom of privacy, etc...

And also the right to defend oneself against those that wish to do us harm.

This right was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in DC vs. Heller a few years back.

It was also upheld as an individual right as well.

But with you being a subject and not a citizen, I wouldn't expect you to understand such concepts of rights and freedom.

BTW, the US saved the UK's azz not once but twice.

Typical Ingrate.

Edited June 23, 2015 by PHP87

[7by7]

Yes, the USA and Japan are two different cultures.

One is a culture with an exceptionally high, for an OECD country, violent crime rate; the other is Japan.

The assertion was that an armed citizenry meant less crime; that is obviously not the case no matter how much the NRA and others try and twist or dismiss the figures.

The suicide rate in Japan is actually 1.94 times that in the USA, not three times (source). But whatever the figure, what that has to do with the assertion that liberal gun ownership laws prevent crime is beyond me.

Maybe you are trying to convince us that mass gun ownership makes people less likely to commit suicide?

Could be true; it seems possible that mass gun ownership make it 10 times more likely you will be murdered before you have the urge to kill yourself!

As we in the UK have only last week celebrated the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, a document much celebrated on your side of the pond and on which much of your Bill of Rights is based, it's a bit rich you lecturing on us about rights and freedoms!

Why were you three years late for the first war, and two the second?

certainly in the second war you provided the money (and bankrupted the UK with your repayment demands!) and much the manpower; but we provided most of the military expertise; even if politics meant a Yank was given the title of Supreme Commander in Europe instead of the best man for the job; Brooke.

Maybe our absence was the reason you couldn't you win in Vietnam?

Edited June 23, 2015 by 7by7

[UKJASE]

do you think there is also a correlation between America's lax gun controls and so called rights to defend oneself, and the country's desire to go to war with other countries for reasons that are very often questionable?

which cultural trait came first i wonder?

Talk about silly...

And "so-called rights"?

We have something called "The Bill of Rights"

In the Bill of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution

Those rights include freedom of speech, freedom to practice your religion, freedom of privacy, etc...

And also the right to defend oneself against those that wish to do us harm.

This right was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in DC vs. Heller a few years back.

It was also upheld as an individual right as well.

But with you being a subject and not a citizen, I wouldn't expect you to understand such concepts of rights and freedom.

BTW, the US saved the UK's azz not once but twice.

Typical Ingrate.

not silly at all. it seems to me that some US citizens are very quick to pick up a gun when they are upset, or have lost face (look at all the mass murders you endure every week); and it seems that your government is very quick to do the same (look at all the wars you get involved in).

it seems to me that the second amendment is ensuring that are lot of innocent people are killed every year in cinemas, churches, shopping centres etc, as well as lots of innocent people being killed abroad when you decide to go to war again for the umpteenth time. Plus the cost of going to war for US citizens, plus the US army's lives lost when you go to war etc., plus all the guns that are illegally exported out of the US through criminal channels, and used in murders throughout the world.

And as has been shown earlier in this thread, the security in your country is much worse than many other countries, and nobody is safer by this mass presence of guns.

So, it seems that people who insist on gun ownership are helping to escalate the problems outlined above. ie your second amendment sucks

[PHP87]

VietNam was lost due to the morale failures of the likes of Jane Fonda that undermined our efforts, both here and abroad as well as the usual suspects like Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground and other far-left radicals that infiltrated American Universities and spewed their BS to a bunch of impressionable kids along with their Professors.

As for Japan, I posted it to prove you can't compare two different cultures/countries and except accurate results and that it is, indeed "silly"

As for your claim that More Gun = More Crime, Numerous studies prove the opposite.

And not just research by John Lott, a Professor of Science, Economic and Research or that of Professor of Criminology Gary Kleck who won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" in 1993

https://www.asc41.com/awards/awardWinners.html

Or Obama's recent CDC survey, or FBI facts and figures, or Dept of Justice studies, or even the 74% of Convicted Felons stating they would avoid an occupied house for fear of an armed resident.

The results of numerous studies that prove your opinion to be incorrect are compiled on this site, complete with footnotes for reference: https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Studies done by Carter's own Dept. of Justice and Clinton's as well prove you wrong, and crime has dropped since then while gun ownership has risen, just like in that "silly" chart.

At least Lott and Kleck overcame their inherent biases and changed from anti-gun to pro-gun once the Professor of Science and Economics and the Liberal Professor of Criminology couldn't deny their own evidence and bias'

And your claim of being 10x more likely to commit suicide in a society that allows firearms has been debunked numerous times. If accurate, the US would have a staggering number of such events as there are over 100 Million gun owners in the US

That study was done by Kellerman, who took numbers from just two high crime neighborhoods and extrapolated those numbers to fit his agenda and his narrative.

Ironically, Kellerman was later one of the major recipients of over two million in grants from the recent CDC study that also proved that Guns in the hands of private owners prevent about 3 Million crimes per year in the US

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm

Study after study, whether conducted by Research Professors with built in anti-gun biases, the FBI, the US Dept. of Justice, the CDC, etc...all say your opinion is wrong and estimates up to 3 Million crimes per year in the US are prevented by private gun owners.

And the crime rate for those that have a concealed carry permit is so small, it can't be estimated accurately because it's smaller than the margin for error.

Again, the numbers are all compiled here:

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Site has a bias, but quotes and footnotes numerous independent studies and even those by two former anti-gun.

Find me a CDC, FBI, DOJ study that backs your opinion.

You can't because they don't exist.

The best you can do is try and compare two different cultures and countries in a weak attempt to back your opinion when that type of research would get a school boy a failing grade.

Edited June 24, 2015 by PHP87

[PHP87]

BTW, you missed something:

Instead of punishing the 99.9999% of gun owners that will never shoot anyone unless it is to defend life or property, why not make lengthy prison sentences mandatory for using a gun while committing a crime?

10 years first offense. No plea bargains, no time off for good behavior, no weights to work out with, no nothing but being in a cell 23 hours per day for 10 years.

20 years for subsequent conviction.

Life without parole for a third conviction.

Agree or Disagree?

As said in the post, the catch and release program in liberal cities isn't working.

[Seastallion]

BTW, you missed something:

Instead of punishing the 99.9999% of gun owners that will never shoot anyone unless it is to defend life or property, why not make lengthy prison sentences mandatory for using a gun while committing a crime?

10 years first offense. No plea bargains, no time off for good behavior, no weights to work out with, no nothing but being in a cell 23 hours per day for 10 years.

20 years for subsequent conviction.

Life without parole for a third conviction.

Agree or Disagree?

As said in the post, the catch and release program in liberal cities isn't working.

If you think hefty prison terms would be a deterrent, you're wrong.

Besides, that's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff....the innocents are already dead. Far better to put a fence at the top of the cliff....ie, control guns.

[PHP87]

BTW, you missed something:

Instead of punishing the 99.9999% of gun owners that will never shoot anyone unless it is to defend life or property, why not make lengthy prison sentences mandatory for using a gun while committing a crime?

10 years first offense. No plea bargains, no time off for good behavior, no weights to work out with, no nothing but being in a cell 23 hours per day for 10 years.

20 years for subsequent conviction.

Life without parole for a third conviction.

Agree or Disagree?

As said in the post, the catch and release program in liberal cities isn't working.

If you think hefty prison terms would be a deterrent, you're wrong.

Besides, that's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff....the innocents are already dead. Far better to put a fence at the top of the cliff....ie, control guns.

Based on what? More flawed logic and opinions that are not factual?

Or is it that you would rather coddle armed criminals and punish law-abiding citizens?

No one is going over a cliff, but you are definitely going down a slippery slope.

What will you say then when your right to "_________" is taken?

[samuibeachcomber]

Welcome to the wild west the "right to bear arms"..............it will never change,ingrained in american culture think dirty harry "make my day"

[Seastallion]

BTW, you missed something:

Instead of punishing the 99.9999% of gun owners that will never shoot anyone unless it is to defend life or property, why not make lengthy prison sentences mandatory for using a gun while committing a crime?

10 years first offense. No plea bargains, no time off for good behavior, no weights to work out with, no nothing but being in a cell 23 hours per day for 10 years.

20 years for subsequent conviction.

Life without parole for a third conviction.

Agree or Disagree?

As said in the post, the catch and release program in liberal cities isn't working.

If you think hefty prison terms would be a deterrent, you're wrong.

Besides, that's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff....the innocents are already dead. Far better to put a fence at the top of the cliff....ie, control guns.

Based on what? More flawed logic and opinions that are not factual?

Or is it that you would rather coddle armed criminals and punish law-abiding citizens?

No one is going over a cliff, but you are definitely going down a slippery slope.

What will you say then when your right to "_________" is taken?

Here is just one of numerous and diverse angles of all political persusions that reach the same conclusion; Prison is not a good deterrent.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3774466.htm

You love the "flawed logic" phrase. Another thing you should try to use less, especially when it's not apt, as here, because I was not making any logical conclusions.

I'm very sorry that you don't get the cliff metaphor. It's quite simple, and fairly commonly used.

Just for you. If you still don't get how it relates to gun control, let me know and I'll make up a graph or something.

"It comes from a story about a town where the playground was at the edge of a cliff. Every so often a child would fall off the cliff. Finally, the town council decided that something should be done about the serious injuries to children.

There was a lot of discussion ending with the council being deadlocked. Some council members wanted to put a fence at the top of the cliff, but others wanted to put an ambulance at the bottom.

It's a kind of parable because the idea of putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is clearly foolish to wait for children to be injured."

[Credo]

I don't know why so many non-Americans get their knickers in a knot over the situation. People in the US simply like having their guns. The death rate is of less importance. As a society, they are, at this point, willing to live with the consequences of guns. Perhaps with time that will change, but not now.

Most Americans do not wish to be like the Japanese, or the Europeans. It is their choice.

[PHP87]

BTW, you missed something:

Instead of punishing the 99.9999% of gun owners that will never shoot anyone unless it is to defend life or property, why not make lengthy prison sentences mandatory for using a gun while committing a crime?

10 years first offense. No plea bargains, no time off for good behavior, no weights to work out with, no nothing but being in a cell 23 hours per day for 10 years.

20 years for subsequent conviction.

Life without parole for a third conviction.

Agree or Disagree?

As said in the post, the catch and release program in liberal cities isn't working.

If you think hefty prison terms would be a deterrent, you're wrong.

Besides, that's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff....the innocents are already dead. Far better to put a fence at the top of the cliff....ie, control guns.

Based on what? More flawed logic and opinions that are not factual?

Or is it that you would rather coddle armed criminals and punish law-abiding citizens?

No one is going over a cliff, but you are definitely going down a slippery slope.

What will you say then when your right to "_________" is taken?

Here is just one of numerous and diverse angles of all political persusions that reach the same conclusion; Prison is not a good deterrent.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3774466.htm

You love the "flawed logic" phrase. Another thing you should try to use less, especially when it's not apt, as here, because I was not making any logical conclusions.

I'm very sorry that you don't get the cliff metaphor. It's quite simple, and fairly commonly used.

Just for you. If you still don't get how it relates to gun control, let me know and I'll make up a graph or something.

"It comes from a story about a town where the playground was at the edge of a cliff. Every so often a child would fall off the cliff. Finally, the town council decided that something should be done about the serious injuries to children.

There was a lot of discussion ending with the council being deadlocked. Some council members wanted to put a fence at the top of the cliff, but others wanted to put an ambulance at the bottom.

It's a kind of parable because the idea of putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is clearly foolish to wait for children to be injured."

Again, comparing another country to the US in a school debate would get you a failing grade.

And you've already stated in so many words that you don't want harsh penalties for anyone that uses a gun in a crime and that you'd rather punish the 99.999% of responsible gun owners rather than focus on the 00.0001% of those that are not.

Now how could anyone argue against logic like that?

[Seastallion]

If you think hefty prison terms would be a deterrent, you're wrong.

Besides, that's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff....the innocents are already dead. Far better to put a fence at the top of the cliff....ie, control guns.

Based on what? More flawed logic and opinions that are not factual?

Or is it that you would rather coddle armed criminals and punish law-abiding citizens?

No one is going over a cliff, but you are definitely going down a slippery slope.

What will you say then when your right to "_________" is taken?

Here is just one of numerous and diverse angles of all political persusions that reach the same conclusion; Prison is not a good deterrent.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3774466.htm

You love the "flawed logic" phrase. Another thing you should try to use less, especially when it's not apt, as here, because I was not making any logical conclusions.

I'm very sorry that you don't get the cliff metaphor. It's quite simple, and fairly commonly used.

Just for you. If you still don't get how it relates to gun control, let me know and I'll make up a graph or something.

"It comes from a story about a town where the playground was at the edge of a cliff. Every so often a child would fall off the cliff. Finally, the town council decided that something should be done about the serious injuries to children.

There was a lot of discussion ending with the council being deadlocked. Some council members wanted to put a fence at the top of the cliff, but others wanted to put an ambulance at the bottom.

It's a kind of parable because the idea of putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is clearly foolish to wait for children to be injured."

Again, comparing another country to the US in a school debate would get you a failing grade.

And you've already stated in so many words that you don't want harsh penalties for anyone that uses a gun in a crime and that you'd rather punish the 99.999% of responsible gun owners rather than focus on the 00.0001% of those that are not.

Now how could anyone argue against logic like that?

Of the numerous concurring opinions, some come out of the US. Besides, you're implying that US crims are deterred by stiffer prison sentences...simply not true. I don't think your crims are any less staunch than Australian, British, South African, Canadian, or Kiwi crims.

I have not made any such statement, directly or in so many words. Talk about lack of logic! I have stated that the stiffer sentences you suggest will not work and that prevention is better that trying to cure....especially when the "cure" is known not to work!

[UKJASE]

What about land mines then? do you think they should be banned?

the NRA posse would agree that land mines dont kill, people kill, right?

and a potential intruder would not enter a land mined property, and would move on elsewhere, right......

so using the arguments that you pro gun guys use, you would also agree that land mines should be allowed, right?

[7by7]

PHP87,

If you think America lost the Vietnam war just for the reasons you claim, you know nothing of history.

Yes, the war was exceedingly unpopular within a large proportion of the American population, people you dismiss as far left radicals, but you lost it for military reasons and because you were trying to prop up a corrupt government which was exceedingly unpopular with it's own people.

You claimed mass gun ownership prevented crime; I showed you that it didn't.

I chose Japan, as I said, because it has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the world. You dismiss the figures because America and Japan have different cultures. Yes, they do and one of the differences is the attitude to mass gun ownership.

The USA has it, and also has one of the highest crime rates in the developed world. Japan doesn't, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world.

The assertion that mass gun ownership prevents crime simply does not hold water; the figures prove it.

You brought up Japan's suicide rate, I made an obviously facetious comment in reply. That you took it seriously says a lot about your desperation to defend the second amendment.

An amendment which was written in different times. You have won the Revoltionary War, you have killed or placed on reservations all the Native Americans. You don't need your guns anymore.

How many more people have to be massacred whilst at prayer before you and your NRA pals realise that?

It is, of course, not just a matter of gun crime. The USA has approximately 10 times as many accidental deaths each year by firearm than the UK (source).

According to this report, 2 American children die a week from accidental shootings by legally owned guns.

How can you and the gun lobby live with yourselves knowing that?

Surely any civilised person must see that is 2 too many?

[Seastallion]

PHP87,

If you think America lost the Vietnam war just for the reasons you claim, you know nothing of history.

Yes, the war was exceedingly unpopular within a large proportion of the American population, people you dismiss as far left radicals, but you lost it for military reasons and because you were trying to prop up a corrupt government which was exceedingly unpopular with it's own people.

You claimed mass gun ownership prevented crime; I showed you that it didn't.

I chose Japan, as I said, because it has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the world. You dismiss the figures because America and Japan have different cultures. Yes, they do and one of the differences is the attitude to mass gun ownership.

The USA has it, and also has one of the highest crime rates in the developed world. Japan doesn't, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world.

The assertion that mass gun ownership prevents crime simply does not hold water; the figures prove it.

You brought up Japan's suicide rate, I made an obviously facetious comment in reply. That you took it seriously says a lot about your desperation to defend the second amendment.

An amendment which was written in different times. You have won the Revoltionary War, you have killed or placed on reservations all the Native Americans. You don't need your guns anymore.

How many more people have to be massacred whilst at prayer before you and your NRA pals realise that?

It is, of course, not just a matter of gun crime. The USA has approximately 10 times as many accidental deaths each year by firearm than the UK (source).

According to this report, 2 American children die a week from accidental shootings by legally owned guns.

How can you and the gun lobby live with yourselves knowing that?

Surely any civilised person must see that is 2 too many?

If not in this thread, then in another on the same subject, and in "discussion" with the same member, I produced the cop-death-by-shooting figures and the comparison to number of population. I mention this now because NZ arguably has a much closer "culture" to the US than Japan and thus the figures should have import.

The disparity was HUGE. Considering cops are at the forefront of crime, and meet a lot more crims than than anyone but a fellow crim, cop death by shooting is quite indicative, and shows the relationship between gun accessibility and death quite well.

Water off a duck's back for this member though, despite his fervent calls for logic and frantic accusations of being infantile.

I really think it's a lost cause, 7by7. Some people will bury their head in the sand. It's sort of like when someone is in love with a no-hoper dastard...you will never convince her of his evil ways....love is blind. Funny analogy when you think of his exhortations about inanimate objects .