Whatever

[Nilgiri]

apparently yes

Why did he leave? Finally RL caught up or some one managed to annoy him enough here?

I'll miss that ultra-leftist guy with a fetish for chubbies for sure!

 

[Finer]

@Fallen King @Desert Fox

Since the thread got deleted, here is my view on what you asked (fallen king):

It is not first time you went off the record. Pay attention to my post again.

My point boils down to comparatively analysis which explains pro vs con. The nation with pro gun rights doesn't fare well comparatively. It is simple as that. The nation with strict gun policy enjoys safer environment than the nation with pro guns do, and that includes accidental firing on misunderstanding scenes becoming normal routine.

I am not interested in the benefits of gun rights but they only benefit to gun owners, not necessarily to the nation as alone. With gun rights, the unforeseen side effects come with huge price that cannot be undone. Accidental firing for starter. Is it worth it in the long run?

 

[Nilgiri]

The nation with pro gun rights doesn't fare well comparatively. It is simple as that.

You are making the assertion it doesn't fare well comparatively by assuming gun rights/restrictions are the only difference....while I have shown the issue is much larger and complex than just that.

The nation with strict gun policy enjoys safer environment than the nation with pro guns do, and that includes accidental firing on misunderstanding scenes becoming normal routine.

Holding everything the same, the US would see more violent crime if the civilians did not have guns.....because of increased % rate by criminals (since civvies would not have them) and the fact that violent deaths in the US are very different in nature to violent deaths in other developed countries (which have none of the same level of drug gangs, gang warfare, ghettos and proximity to Mexico, Caribbean and South America that the US has).

Accidental firing and "misunderstanding" constitute like 0.01% or less of total violent crime deaths. The vast majority are from drug gangs engaging in turf war and enforcement....and thus banning civilian ownership will have no bearing on that significant bulk of deaths (which is accountable for most of the difference between the US and other developed nations)....in fact it may just add to it (the ban) since more civilians will be unable to defend themselves and/or deter criminals when they are in proximity to such gangs....especially given law enforcement is notoriously bad in many of these areas. It would be a bloodbath to make them "gun free zones".

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

• Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence. Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.

 

[Finer]

My points boils down to ground reality. There is the reason why we are talking about USA, not others. USA is among few nations that doesn't fare well concerning the containment of the criminal activity. To the extent, the accidental firing becoming normal routine now, otherwise we wouldn't be having debate now.

Despite of other factors as you have mentioned above backed your research, that doesn't negate other factors as well which also plays the role thus this thread. In comparison to the nations with strict gun policy, it is still at worst. The fact that the accidental firing is becoming normal routine suggests it is out of order now.

 

[Nilgiri]

To the extent, the accidental firing becoming normal routine now, otherwise we wouldn't be having debate now.

More because the media has made it a polarising debate by highly skewed and selective portraying of the evidence.

The fact that the accidental firing is becoming normal routine suggests it is out of order now.

You just say things without giving evidence or statistics to back it up.

Anyways lets agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Finer]

More because the media has made it a polarising debate by highly skewed and selective portraying of the evidence.



You just say things without giving evidence or statistics to back it up.

Anyways lets agree to disagree and move on.

Without evidence? My apologize. Apparently, there is no such thing as accidental firing which warranted the thread that led us into debate. USA is very peaceful nation ever since gun rights, happy now?

 

[Nilgiri]

Apparently, there is no such thing as accidental firing which warranted the thread that led us into debate. USA is very peaceful nation ever since gun rights, happy now?

I am asking you for evidence of how much such accidental firing is w.r.t percentage of the total gun related homicide rate in US?

If its say more than 10%, then its significant and you have a point. If its less than 1%....shouldn't we first be looking at addressing the other 99%?

I am not saying it doesn't happen, but solving a tiny fraction of deaths while ignoring the reasons for the much larger ones (drugs, gangs) etc and potentially making those increase just to solve the small fraction seems very illogical.

 

[Finer]

I am asking you for evidence of how much such accidental firing is w.r.t percentage of the total gun related homicide rate in US?

If its say more than 10%, then its significant and you have a point. If its less than 1%....shouldn't we first be looking at addressing the other 99%?

I am not saying it doesn't happen, but solving a tiny fraction of deaths while ignoring the reasons for the much larger ones (drugs, gangs) etc and potentially making those increase just to solve the small fraction seems very illogical.

You have habit of prolonging to other point that bears no relevant to our debate. We are not here to debate on certain percentage of criminal activity on gun rights alone. It is about the containment of criminal activity on nation with strict gun policy versus the nation with pro gun policy. Hence, the nation with pro gun policy doesn't fair comparatively. There is the reason why we are still talking about USA, and not others.

It is simple. Don't stretch it to the pointless statistics that doesn't support the argument.

The nation with strict gun policy is a lot safer comparatively, to the extent it excludes accidental shooting that is becoming normal routine for the nations with pro gun policy. Not to mention, the police enforcement forces in the nation with strict gun policy resorts to light resource like baton to discipline the angry crowds. That is the privilege that the nation with pro gun policy cannot enjoy. What part of my simple explanatory comparatively analysis on the nation with strict gun policy versus the nation with pro gun policy don't you understand?

You do tend to stretch the argument furthermore to the point which takes away the actual point of the discussion. Not the first time you did earlier.

 

[Nilgiri]

It is about the containment of criminal activity on nation with strict gun policy versus the nation with pro gun policy. Hence, the nation with pro gun policy doesn't fair comparatively. There is the reason why we are still talking about USA, and not others.

Um why are you saying its strict gun policy versus pro gun policy and saying comparative comparison and then saying we should be talking just about the USA?

No other country in the world has the right to firearms written into its constitution so it cannot be compared comparatively with countries that rely on complete govt control and monitoring of its population but generally end up outsourcing guns to criminals only and also the rise of murder by knives and other implements.

The gun doesn't automatically kill people, its the person....remove the gun, he will kill with a knife. Are you going to call for ban on knives too? After seeing how that guy in China killed more than 22 kids with a knife in a school attack?

The nation with strict gun policy is a lot safer comparatively, t

Correlation is not causation! Comparing apples to oranges given the different environments of every country.

But comparing within the US, its easy to see that most of the gun crimes occur within gun-free zones. Its not too hard to extrapolate that increasing the size of the gun-free zone to the whole country means the gun crimes will increase.

The above represents drug and gang related shootings as well (which are targetted, not random), so lets take those out of the equation to make it even more restricted to only random victims:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/

------------------------

QUOTE:

The dataset includes 153 incidents going back to the beginning of 2002.

Research done at the Heritage Foundation found that fifty-four of the 153 incidents (35 percent) involved a shooter targeting people at random who were not relatives or adversaries of the attempted murderer.

Of the 54 incidents that fit these criteria, the shooter chose locations where guns were banned 37 times (69 percent). Alternatively, the shooting occurred where guns were legally allowed only 17 times (31 percent). See graphic.

Of the 17 shootings that occurred where citizens could legally carry firearms, 5(29 percent) were ended when the gunman was stopped or slowed by a gun permit holder’s intervention.

If you have a choice to be in a gun-free zone or a legal-to-carry setting, you are less likely to be the victim of a mass shooting where it is legal to carry guns. All else being equal, if a killer can strike where he is less likely to face lethal law-abiding resistance from ordinary citizens, he will.

--------------------------

Therefore the numbers simply do not back what you are saying unfortunately.

You have been fooled by the leftist govt-loving, govt reliant media it seems.

Lets see the violent crime rate of a gun-restricted developed country like the UK and compare it to the US:

So you see? Its 900 per 100,000 people....more than double that of the US. So much for your assertion that no-guns for civilians = more peaceful environment. You don't need a gun to do a violent crime, but you do probably need one to stop it in many cases. I mean is a cop going to be there instantly to stop the rape of a woman or some other grievous assault on someone? No. Its much better to have concealed carry for civilians so a criminal is deterred since he doesn't know if he will survive indulging on such a crime on the general public as a lone wolf. Thus they have to focus more on becoming part of a gang and target other gangs so at least there is a higher organisation involved and better chance of profit for indulging in crime....since if they target the general public in such a way as a gang...thats when their days are numbered because the police wipes them out all together.

If you talk about just homicides, the majority of those are drug and gang warfare (up to 90% in many areas as stated by the FBI). The much lower presence of such drug and gang warfare is what leads to the other countries of the developed world having a lower homicide rate....NOTHING to do with civilian gun right ownership (which actually seems to help REDUCE the incidence of overall violent crime as shown in the diagram above).

Homicide rate in US compared to the developed world (difference lies in the drug and gang warfare - according to the FBI's own statistics). I mean lets say its not even 90% but say 50% of all homicides are drug/gang related in the US (since thats the minimum the FBI says exist in the US districts)....that already reduces the homicide rate by half which would bring the US a lot closer to the other countries which simply do not have this environment of the war on drugs due to the locality, size and population of the US (e.g does the UK or France for example have a Mexico bordering it to the south?)

If we take it to be 70% (closer to the actual figure than 50% minimum which is what the FBI released), the homicide rate would actually be around 1.5 or so, well in line with the other developed countries.

What part of my simple explanatory comparatively analysis on the nation with strict gun policy versus the nation with pro gun policy don't you understand?

You have done no such analysis other than just talk. No numbers, no data, no statistical evidence for me to dissect and destroy.

So there is nothing to understand other than you are in favour of just govt and criminals having the guns and thinking this will reduce a mostly drug/gang induced homicide rate in the US and that violent crimes in general are higher because of guns.

 

[Finer]

@Nilgiri

Why do you copy/paste when you don't understand the basic premise of the debate?

Um why are you saying its strict gun policy versus pro gun policy and saying comparative comparison and then saying we should be talking just about the USA?

Why we are talking about USA and not others? That was the point of discussion, not what should be. You do have reading comprehension problems.

No other country in the world has the right to firearms written into its constitution so it cannot be compared comparatively with countries that rely on complete govt control and monitoring of its population but generally end up outsourcing guns to criminals only and also the rise of murder by knives and other implements.

The gun doesn't automatically kill people, its the person....remove the gun, he will kill with a knife. Are you going to call for ban on knives too? After seeing how that guy in China killed more than 22 kids with a knife in a school attack?

USA is among few nations that subscribes pro gun policy. It is not surprising why accidental shooting has become normal routine. That's why we are talking about USA. Because unlike USA, other nations that subscribes stricter protocol on gun control is restricted to using lesser degree of the resource like baton, not guns in response to angry crowds. But with civilians authorized to use licensed guns, they will have to be dealt with the guns to discipline, or better yet, upon inquiry on the scenes. That alone invites accidental shooting based on misunderstanding exchanges which is actually becoming normal routine in USA. Yet you go out of your way with statistics of crime activity comparatively when the basic core of usage is already misused never mind the actual crime rate.

What part of don't you understand the privilege that police enforcement forces that use baton to dispel the angry crowd instead of unnecessary highly harmful resource that may invite unforeseen result hence this thread? US doesn't enjoy that privilege for reason. Yet you are justifying the benefits of pro gun with statistics when you cannot even acknowledge why the accidental shooting is becoming normal routine at the face of pro gun rights. Start with there.

Forget statistics. Forget crime rate. Explain to me why the accidental shooting is very common in USA? Why police enforcement is forced to use guns instead of baton? Why police shot defenseless old man?

 

[Nilgiri]

Why we are talking about USA and not others? That was the point of discussion, not what should be. You do have reading comprehension problems.

You are the one that is dragging in the ideal "gun restricted" countries as a frame of reference. If you want to compare the US with just itself...shall we look at just comparing the crime rates of pro-gun states with anti-gun states then? You won't like those numbers either I can tell you right now.

USA is among few nations that subscribes pro gun policy. It is not surprising why accidental shooting has become normal routine.

"Normal routine". Again just giving a statement with no evidence. Or do you let media discourse constitute as hard evidence? In which case thats just foolish. If that isn't the case, show me the numbers and evidence. Just typing a statement does not make it true.

Because unlike USA, other nations that subscribes stricter protocol on gun control is restricted to using lesser degree of the resource like baton, not guns in response to angry crowds.

These countries fare a lot worse in violent crime overall compared to the US....and quite possibly because of their lack of civilian gun ownership. I thought we weren't going to talk about "other country's" anyway.

That alone invites accidental shooting based on misunderstanding exchanges which is actually becoming normal routine in USA. Yet you go out of your way with statistics of crime activity comparatively when the basic core of usage is already misused never mind the actual crime rate.

You keep harping on about "accidental shooting" and provide no figures about its prevalence in homicides or violent crime in general. Put up or shut up. Just saying something with no proof means absolutely nothing.

Anyway let me put some figures for you (since you seem reluctant to):

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600."

So about 600 out of total 35,513 firearms deaths were from accident based incident. Thats about 1.7 percent.

So effectively you have let 1.7% of something form the reasoning basis for the 100% "the normal routine". Good job.

What part of don't you understand the privilege that police enforcement forces that use baton to dispel the angry crowd instead of unnecessary highly harmful resource that may invite unforeseen result hence this thread? US doesn't enjoy that privilege for reason. Yet you are justifying the benefits of pro gun with statistics when you cannot even acknowledge why the accidental shooting is becoming normal routine at the face of pro gun rights. Start with there.

Again we are talking about 1.7% being the "normal routine"? The media (for various vested interests) has made this 1.7% the normal routine maybe....doesn't mean much to the reality if you know how the media operates.

So you have to somehow define what you mean by "normal routine" and what you establish it on. Just words won't cut it.

Forget statistics. Forget crime rate. Explain to me why the accidental shooting is very common in USA? Why police enforcement is forced to use guns instead of baton? Why police shot defenseless old man?

So 600 people died from accidental firearm related incident in one year (365 days) for a population of about 310 million.

Thats about 1 person in every 200 million each day. This sounds common to you?

That too we are talking about total gun related accidents, not just those pertaining to cops (which would be even more rare).

As to why the police did this or that....that is completely another discussion to banning civilian firearms. You really think the US cops are going to go gun-free and be armed with batons if the general civilian population gives up its guns (hypothetically forced or voluntary) when a full 50% - 90% of homicides are gang related and not civilian related?

Of course not! The majority of violence towards the cops stems not from the general armed public but when they confront such gangs (its why they are armed in the first place).

The vast majority of cop-civilian interactions in the US are peaceful and non-violent. Certain issues will pop up that the media will latch on to to kindle the whole race-baiting and anti-gun agenda that get dictated to them by the bureaucracy that benefits from having a servile, controllable and dependent population in the long run (and trample all over the US constitution if needed). The world is an imperfect place, a few cops are brutish assholes of course, some can be racist....they are human beings after all...but you have failed to make your point that disarming the civilian population will somehow change that (by somehow generalising that gun accidents regarding cops are common and therefore the public must be disarmed - as though that would reduce the need for cops to have guns as though the gangs and drugs didn't exist).

 

[Vergennes]

@waz @Blue Marlin

Hello buddies,seems like Theresa May is now the only one to replace Dave,what do you think about her ? What's her projects ?

@Providence

 

[CHN Bamboo]

@grey boy 2 @cirr @Chinese Bamboo @Chinese-Dragon @ChineseTiger1986
please suggest any good online news papers of China, in chinese language is also fine !

http://www.thepaper.cn/
http://www.guancha.cn/
These were websites that I liked very much in the past,the political slant can be described as right wing...Take care!
But I am left-wing now..
You can also see some news here:www.zhihu.com
And I like reading news about technology&innovation in https://www.linkedin.com/

 

[Gufi]

Hello commoners i am here to socialise as per orders of the empire.... come peasants let us discuss things which interest all of u....

 

[Srinivas]

http://www.thepaper.cn/
http://www.guancha.cn/
These were websites that I liked very much in the past,the political slant can be described as right wing...Take care!
But I am left-wing now..
You can also see some news here:www.zhihu.com
And I like reading news about technology&innovation in https://www.linkedin.com/

Xiexie !

What kind of programming you do?