[SlapheadMofo]

What is with the rampant paranoia from the pro-gun people?
Yesterday, I was checking out a couple 'sporting' rifles that a friend of mine had picked up recently.
Because there were two 'gun guys' in the room, the conversation invariably rockets into some weird suburban freedom-fighter fantasy nonsense where these guys, who would likely need oxygen if they tried to jog a mile, are talking like they're gonna take on the US military. They make ridiculous references as to how the 'insurgents' in Iraq/Afghanistan are able to do it and throw around lots of 'protecting the Constitution' bull****. I was laughing my ass off.
These guys are good friends of mine, but holy ****, what is it about guns that make otherwise reasonable people lose all perspective? So, let me get it straight, you half crippled old men are gonna wage a guerrilla war in suburban Massachusetts in the event the gubmint tries to limit the availability of guns that you bought specifcally just to protect your other guns? So, you guys are gonna what? Suicide bomb Stop and Shop and plant IEDs along I495 in the AM before you slouch off to your cubical jobs? Really? You're gonna kill or be killed over the sacred second amendment, but in a pop quiz, you haven't even a general idea of what 80% of the other amendments say?
I think the one major effect this whole debate has had on my opinion is that it's moved me from someone who thought most people should be able to have fairly unfettered access to most weapons (even though I see no reason anyone needs an AR, etc around the house, I'm a pretty libertarian guy) to someone who now believes the vast majority of gun owners are too out of touch with reality to be armed. My favorite is when is see these clowns present themselves as defenders of the Constitution, then talk about how we need prayer in schools and censorship of entertainment. It's just more stupidity and hypocrisy than I can handle. Thank god 99.99% of these people just blowing hot air, otherwise, we could have our own little redneck version of the Taliban going on.

 

[dante]

I like how dante own's his position and seems anti gun to the core. Sydasti has the right to call anyone who disagrees with him a child, but he has yet to state how and why he feels that way- are you merely pro gun control sydasti or do you want them banned?

WTF Happened to this thread, and why weren't you all off celebrating your (real or imagined) Irish heritage yesterday?

Btw, I'm not "anti-gun", I'm "anti-stupid" and "anti-bad-guys-having-guns".

Your "UK has 4x the violent crime rate" is pure NRA-talking-points bullsh!t, and has been debunked elsewhere in this thread. Your decision not to call the cops for either the assault on your neighbor's girlfriend or for his verbal threats to you, and instead deciding to place your trust on your guns in a Rambo-style shoot out is both immoral AND stupid; as long as there were witnesses to the attack on the woman, the police wouldn't need her testimony (or consent to press charges) and the guy could've gone to jail... Instead you what, let him go back inside and continue beating her where you guys couldn't see it happen? Or allow her to go back to her place and then allowed him to follow, where she might not have had neighbors willing to interfere? Hope you sleep well at night knowing that you're (supposedly) protected by your guns while everyone else in the world gets their proverbial head bashed into the driveway...

I'm anti-bad-guys-having-guns to the point that it means that if some GOOD guys happen to get caught up in the sweep and don't get to own guns, GREAT! The moment you can figure out how to stop someone from buying a gun legally, and then immediately turning around and selling it to a bad guy let me know and I'll change my stance on gun control. As long as you can convince someone that you originally bought the gun for yourself before changing your mind and selling it to a criminal you can't be convicted on Federal straw-purchasing charges. And since private sales aren't covered by background checks, you're perfectly fine selling it to that shady character down the street, since you don't know he'd (almost certainly) fail a background check. Legal guns ALLOW criminals to get guns illegally. Period.

I was taught the first rule of political science is that powers that be will push you as much as you comply.

That's funny, I graduated with a degree in Political Science from one of the top (Poli Sci) Universities in the country, and the first rule of Political Science that I was taught was that perception equals reality. If you are able to convince the population of something (that air travel is inherently dangerous, for instance), you are forced to govern from the perspective that that is the reality. If you are able to convince the public that guns equal safety and more guns equals more safety, than you are able to govern as if that were really the case (even though that's been proven false by any accredited study).

In fact, I never heard your "theory" postulated a single time in all 4 years I was there. Why push people to the breaking point when you can instead convince them of an alternate reality where they end up willfully acting against their own best interests? It's Prisoners Dilemma, where people act in their own self-interest to the detriment of all (including themselves). All you have to do is manipulate the preferences with lies and false statements and you can get them to act however you'd like.

 

[syadasti]

Thank god 99.99% of these people just blowing hot air, otherwise, we could have our own little redneck version of the Taliban going on.

Actually the West Point think tank officially pointed out that there is far more redneck Jihad than real Jihad in America:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/right_wing_terrorism_is_real/

 

[stevew]

obey.

typical fat american jumping for joy.

 

[SlapheadMofo]

One thing I really enjoy is the expression on a gun nut's face when you interrupt their canned ramblings to ask their thoughts regarding the 17th amendment. It's like asking anti-gay 'christian' bunch whether they eat shellfish.

 

[velocipedist]

Spintek

Universal background checks, state run gun registery, gun liablity insurance. Sensible regulation on protection/target specific weapons, not sporting weapons. In no way limits your ability to procure certain guns, you simply have to jump through a few hoops, that only a person with ill-intent would deem unreasonable.
Slippery slope......
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Correlation is not causation
You continue to post emotionally driven paranoid arguments, give me a good reasons/examples why regulation will lead to outright banning, I simply don't see it.

The US is the richest country in the world, and while we do have the largest military, many others have the capability and even use it overseas e.g. France in Mali. A standing army that , at times misguided, is primarily used to maintain world stability, that promotes our national interest. Again large army=violence prone populace? Where did you get that perverse idea?

 

[dante]

One thing I really enjoy is the expression on a gun nut's face when you interrupt their canned ramblings to ask their thoughts regarding the 17th amendment. It's like asking anti-gay 'christian' bunch whether they eat shellfish.

17th Amendment? 16th Amendment? How about the 19th Amendment?

 

[gastro]

This thread is becoming standing room only with all the straw men crowding in.

Anyone care to discuss the 2nd amendment? More specifically, the D.C. vs. Heller (2008) majority decision which established an individual right to bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others? Or is that just another recycled NRA talking point lol.

 

[Andyman_1970]

 

[syadasti]

This thread is becoming standing room only with all the straw men crowding in.

Anyone care to discuss the 2nd amendment? More specifically, the D.C. vs. Heller (2008) majority decision which established an individual right to bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others? Or is that just another recycled NRA talking point lol.

As posted earlier, RTFT:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he wrote in the syllabus of his opinion. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment or state analogs. The [Supreme] Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

"redneck jihad".... thats some quote-worthy material there

 

[dante]

This thread is becoming standing room only with all the straw men crowding in.

Anyone care to discuss the 2nd amendment? More specifically, the D.C. vs. Heller (2008) majority decision which established an individual right to bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others? Or is that just another recycled NRA talking point lol.

The Court has determined that the 2nd amendment is a living document, able to be modified to fit the circumstances. It's why we can't have surface-to-air missiles and RPGs, even though both fit the narrow description of "arms" (hand-carried weapons), and why we can't have working tanks and howitzers even though both fit the more broad definition of "arms" (all weapons).

The current pro-gun Court ruled in Heller that the rights of gun-owners to own weapons outweighed the rights of the municipality to ban them. That being said, it's not absolute and states and local governments are still free to restrict other weapons such as brass knuckles, butterfly/switchblade knives, certain sling-shots, cane-swords, etc. It's not the Court ruling on the Constitutionality of it, but rather the 5 conservative justices declaring "we feel this way about the situation". It was still a narrowly-decided gray-area decision, and can just as easily be overturned or "clarified" by another Court decision in the future.

 

[rockofullr]

This thread is becoming standing room only with all the straw men crowding in.

Anyone care to discuss the 2nd amendment? More specifically, the D.C. vs. Heller (2008) majority decision which established an individual right to bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others? Or is that just another recycled NRA talking point lol.

Oh yeah the second amendment!

We had forgotten about that. Thank you for your thought provoking and original contribution to the conversation. I would rank it as an equal to the wonderfully thought out pro gun graphix I see everyday on my FB feed.

Look here's one now!

Brilliant! I wish my stupid, gun banning, brain had considered these points earlier so I would not look so foolish.

 

[dante]

^^^^^^I was really hoping for a "to all Legal gun owners: There is a mandatory militia training and regulation this Saturday to be in accordance with the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. If you are not able to attend, you are Constitutionally banned from owning a firearm. Thank you for your cooperation."

 

[SlapheadMofo]

I agree there is and should be a Constitutional right to bear arms, and also that there should be reasonable regulation of them. The more I hear from 'pro-gun' people, the more I think the regulations need to be a lot more stringent. Uttering the words 'cold dead hands' or referring to yourself and the other wanna-bes down at the local sportsman's club as part of a 'well regulated milita' should be just cause for instant seizure.

 

[gastro]

so much vitriol

I am not arguing that there can be no limitations on the rights guaranteed by Second Amendment. Heller teaches that there exists an individual right to possess and bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others. Therefore a ban on those types of firearms is unconstitutional.

Until such time as SCOTUS throws stare decisis out the window (would you really want that? see roe v wade) the question becomes what types of firearms fall under the classification of "common use?" I would argue that handguns and so called "assault weapons" of which there have been tens of millions sold and which are currently in common usage by law enforcement (once again for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others) certainly do.

All these recent anti-gun laws proposed and passed will not stand scrutiny by the courts and when they fall they will only broaden and reinforce the rights guaranteed US citizens by the 2A. So I say bring it on! Make them as ridiculous as you wish but ultimately we must be governed by the rule of law. If that breaks down, we are all fuct.

 

[gastro]

Here, let me peg the conniption meter:

 

[rockofullr]

I am not arguing that there can be no limitations on the rights guaranteed by Second Amendment. Heller teaches that there exists an individual right to possess and bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others. Therefore a ban on those types of firearms is unconstitutional.

Show me the post in this thread where banning "commonly used firearms" was considered as a serious solution.

Otherwise, carry on arguing with yourself.

Here, let me peg the conniption meter:

Oh look more NRA talking points. How surprising.

Did you notice that he never makes a point other than "you don't really care about inner city violence"? Some high quality obfuscation though.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

so much vitriol

I am not arguing that there can be no limitations on the rights guaranteed by Second Amendment. Heller teaches that there exists an individual right to possess and bear commonly used firearms for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others. Therefore a ban on those types of firearms is unconstitutional.

Until such time as SCOTUS throws stare decisis out the window (would you really want that? see roe v wade) the question becomes what types of firearms fall under the classification of "common use?" I would argue that handguns and so called "assault weapons" of which there have been tens of millions sold and which are currently in common usage by law enforcement (once again for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others) certainly do.

All these recent anti-gun laws proposed and passed will not stand scrutiny by the courts and when they fall they will only broaden and reinforce the rights guaranteed US citizens by the 2A. So I say bring it on! Make them as ridiculous as you wish but ultimately we must be governed by the rule of law. If that breaks down, we are all fuct.

i think the bigger question is whether the very-unique-to-the-US 2nd amendment is still a reasonable and necessary law, considering its benefits do not clearly offset its costs; and considering data from other modern developed societies suggests there is no need/benefit for such a law.

 

[dante]

Until such time as SCOTUS throws stare decisis out the window (would you really want that? see roe v wade) the question becomes what types of firearms fall under the classification of "common use?" I would argue that handguns and so called "assault weapons" of which there have been tens of millions sold and which are currently in common usage by law enforcement (once again for the purpose of lawful defense of self and others) certainly do.

There is no stare decisis anymore. Citizens United took care of that, and (many of? most of?) the justices have made it clear that they don't care about the precepdence of the VRA either. "Respecting prior decisions" is boilerplate bullsh!t that every nominee spouts, and then does whatever they wanted to do anyway once they're confirmed.

 

[gastro]

i think the bigger question is whether the very-unique-to-the-US 2nd amendment is still a reasonable and necessary law, considering its benefits do not clearly offset its costs; and considering data from other modern developed societies suggests there is no need/benefit for such a law.

That is a very big question indeed. Repeal of the 2nd is certainly a legal possibility but I haven't heard of anyone seriously proposing it yet.

 

[gastro]

There is no stare decisis anymore. Citizens United took care of that, and (many of? most of?) the justices have made it clear that they don't care about the precepdence of the VRA either. "Respecting prior decisions" is boilerplate bullsh!t that every nominee spouts, and then does whatever they wanted to do anyway once they're confirmed.

So SCOTUS in your estimation is merely a 9 person mini-legislature with no term limits? If it's come to that we're fuct indeed.

 

[dante]

So SCOTUS in your estimation is merely a 9 person mini-legislature with no term limits? If it's come to that we're fuct indeed.

Have you been paying attention the last 3-4 years? Citizens United overturned a century of laws and precedence. They've agreed to hear a case challenging the limits of political contributions. They upheld ACA on a technicality and have Scalia recently referred to the VRA as a "racial entitlement" and said that the only reason that anyone voted for it at all was because of the name.

We're long past the point at which the SCOTUS acted as an impartial adjudicator as to the constitutionality of laws...

 

[kidwoo]

Until such time as SCOTUS throws stare decisis out the window

I think you mean defenestrate.

 

[kidwoo]

Is there anyone who is "concerned about their second amendment rights" who can simultaneously "communicate effectively in the English language?"


Serious question.

 

[gastro]

Alan Gura can.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvm44u_alan-gura-on-the-living-constitution_news#.UUelxxyzeSp

 

[Pesqueeb]

 

[kidwoo]

Alan Gura can.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvm44u_alan-gura-on-the-living-constitution_news#.UUelxxyzeSp

In your own words, tell me what he said in that clip.

 

[Jm_]

So a Walmart manager escorted an amputee out of the store here in Anchorage over the weekend because his service dog didn't have a leash. Amputee grabs his gun and shoots the manager.


Yeah, just another stand up gun owner.


If only everyone in the parking lot had guns...

 

[Jm_]

I think it's secretly every republican gun-owner's dream to be able to mow down some bad-guys Die-Hard style. I mean who doesn't? I think that idea and hope drives a lot of gun owners.


And then there's the person that's going to come and take their guns. Who is that might you ask? The Id.

 

[blackohio]

im liberal and its my dream to either fight a gang of 8 year olds, a group of midgets or just kill some annoying useless people.

 

[kidwoo]

Oh come on, I'd give you a pack of 12 year olds......no problem.

Don't sell yourself short.

 

[SPINTECK]

obey.

Sorry Sydaste, I don't take anyone from Jersey seriously. For some reason $tinkle's pic does make me think of jersey. I did read the thread and I assume you feel no guns would be better overall because countries like England and the others in your graphs have less gun deaths. Although we will have to disagree on overall violence.

 

[SPINTECK]

WTF Happened to this thread, and why weren't you all off celebrating your (real or imagined) Irish heritage yesterday?

Btw, I'm not "anti-gun", I'm "anti-stupid" and "anti-bad-guys-having-guns".

Your "UK has 4x the violent crime rate" is pure NRA-talking-points bullsh!t, and has been debunked elsewhere in this thread. Your decision not to call the cops for either the assault on your neighbor's girlfriend or for his verbal threats to you, and instead deciding to place your trust on your guns in a Rambo-style shoot out is both immoral AND stupid; as long as there were witnesses to the attack on the woman, the police wouldn't need her testimony (or consent to press charges) and the guy could've gone to jail... Instead you what, let him go back inside and continue beating her where you guys couldn't see it happen? Or allow her to go back to her place and then allowed him to follow, where she might not have had neighbors willing to interfere? Hope you sleep well at night knowing that you're (supposedly) protected by your guns while everyone else in the world gets their proverbial head bashed into the driveway...

I'm anti-bad-guys-having-guns to the point that it means that if some GOOD guys happen to get caught up in the sweep and don't get to own guns, GREAT! The moment you can figure out how to stop someone from buying a gun legally, and then immediately turning around and selling it to a bad guy let me know and I'll change my stance on gun control. As long as you can convince someone that you originally bought the gun for yourself before changing your mind and selling it to a criminal you can't be convicted on Federal straw-purchasing charges. And since private sales aren't covered by background checks, you're perfectly fine selling it to that shady character down the street, since you don't know he'd (almost certainly) fail a background check. Legal guns ALLOW criminals to get guns illegally. Period.



That's funny, I graduated with a degree in Political Science from one of the top (Poli Sci) Universities in the country, and the first rule of Political Science that I was taught was that perception equals reality. If you are able to convince the population of something (that air travel is inherently dangerous, for instance), you are forced to govern from the perspective that that is the reality. If you are able to convince the public that guns equal safety and more guns equals more safety, than you are able to govern as if that were really the case (even though that's been proven false by any accredited study).

In fact, I never heard your "theory" postulated a single time in all 4 years I was there. Why push people to the breaking point when you can instead convince them of an alternate reality where they end up willfully acting against their own best interests? It's Prisoners Dilemma, where people act in their own self-interest to the detriment of all (including themselves). All you have to do is manipulate the preferences with lies and false statements and you can get them to act however you'd like.

Thanks for explaining that. I am not anti-background check, although I wonder what happens when your are left guns when someone, father, passes away. I assume the state would take them and then have a background check done on everyone in the house. The britain stats stand IMO. I debunked your debunker here http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/f67/gun-control-255668/index58/. And I never brought up canada like you other link, we know they have more fun, freedom and now a higher dollar then we ever will.

As far as policy sci, what can I say- I went to a state school (John, dat shuld Xplane grammer my). That is a true story- I think my prof was Korean and he explained zero sum games and how the nature of gov't is to push as far as the people comply. I like your explanation of alternate reality- as a bio major all i know about that it sounds similar to Chomsky's manufactured consent. Which is the point I try to make when I say all these shootings with assautl rifles around the president's new term and international gun treaty coincidental at best. Combine that with more gun coverage in the press while the actual stats have been going down and I'm still very suspicious.

I still feel the stats aren't there for me to put this as a political priority. Obviously I am the minority in this thread. I do wish I could keep up the pace and provide amusing fodder for woo and crew, but I don't have the energy. Hope you guys are right when these policies start to go your way, which they will. you know what they say," may you not only get what you want, but you like it after you get it."

 

[SPINTECK]

A little bit more fodder. This just in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/ucf-evacuated_n_2899913.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=285571

"His timeline got off," university Police Chief Richard Beary said. "We think the rapid response of law enforcement may have changed his ability to think quickly on his feet."


More soft targets: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/us/florida-ucf-body-found/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Firearms are prohibited at UCF, which is home to about 59,000 students at its main Orlando campus and 10 regional facilities.

How is a 30-year-old, not taking classes still allowed to live in a dorm? Another Assualt rifle, .22- looks like a machine gun to me So Dante, how do you think the 18-29 generation is going to perceive guns/law enforcement now that the police have saved a dorm from another assault rifle killer? Guns have 10, 20 years at best-maybe less.

 

[syadasti]

Sorry Sydaste, I don't take anyone from Jersey seriously. For some reason $tinkle's pic does make me think of jersey. I did read the thread and I assume you feel no guns would be better overall because countries like England and the others in your graphs have less gun deaths. Although we will have to disagree on overall violence.

Thanks for conceding but you really should seek some help.

 

[dante]

Thanks for explaining that. I am not anti-background check, although I wonder what happens when your are left guns when someone, father, passes away. I assume the state would take them and then have a background check done on everyone in the house. The britain stats stand IMO. I debunked your debunker here http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/f67/gun-control-255668/index58/. And I never brought up canada like you other link, we know they have more fun, freedom and now a higher dollar then we ever will.

Not sure what your debunking the debunking was, but the point remains, the UK counts more acts in it's "violent crime rate" than the US. Period. The UK counts all violence against a person, even if there is no injury committed. The US only counts violence against a person that results in injury (aggravated assault). The US does not count "simple assault", whereas the UK does.

I posted the link that talked about Canada's violent crime rate since it told exactly what the FBI counted for their violent crime rate. Then I posted a link that showed what the UK counted for their violent crime rate. Since the UK includes simple assault and the US doesn't, you can't compare the numbers (and of course the UK's overall total is higher since it includes things that aren't in the US numbers).

Seriously, I don't know how much simpler I can put it...

 

[$tinkle]

Seriously, I don't know how much simpler I can put it...

nothing left to do but admit defeat, & wipe the dust from your sandals

 

[syadasti]

Not sure what your debunking the debunking was, but the point remains, the UK counts more acts in it's "violent crime rate" than the US. Period. The UK counts all violence against a person, even if there is no injury committed. The US only counts violence against a person that results in injury (aggravated assault). The US does not count "simple assault", whereas the UK does.

I posted the link that talked about Canada's violent crime rate since it told exactly what the FBI counted for their violent crime rate. Then I posted a link that showed what the UK counted for their violent crime rate. Since the UK includes simple assault and the US doesn't, you can't compare the numbers (and of course the UK's overall total is higher since it includes things that aren't in the US numbers).

Seriously, I don't know how much simpler I can put it...

This article goes over it in detail and mentions it was complied by a blatantly partisan organization right before a political speech. The UK includes non-violent crimes like theft (burglary, vehicle theft, purse-snatching and bicycle theft) and the US excludes most violent sexual crimes. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that UK has a lot of crime but they do not have more violent crime than the US, not even close.

However, a closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K. The reason for the U.K.'s higher violent crime rate is their far broader definition of a "violent" crime.

An oft-cited source for the argument that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than the U.K. is a 2009 article in the Daily Mail, an English tabloid. The story put the U.K. at the top of a so-called "League of Shame" for its violence.

The statistics in that article were compiled by Britain's Conservative Party and drawn from different reports by the United Nations and the European Commission. They do not appear to be part of an official study, and specific reports used by the U.N. and E.C. were not named.

Citing various crime statistics, the article claims the U.K. was the most violent country in the EU. However, that title was not given by the EU or U.N.

Rather, it was Britain's Conservative Party that named Britain "the most violent in the EU" on a day when one of its members was scheduled to give a speech on crime.

Despite the lack of sources for the numbers, and the possible partisan politicking of Britain's Conservative Party, it's worth comparing to U.S. numbers compiled by the FBI.

The robbery rates were similar between the two countries:

U.S. 2009 robbery rate: 133 per 100,000.

U.K. 2009 robbery rate: 164 per 100,000.

The burglary rates were far higher in the U.S.:

U.S. 2009 burglary rate: 716.3 per 100,000

U.K. 2009 burglary rate: 523 per 100,000.

And in the U.S., you were nearly four times as likely to be murdered:

U.S. 2009 murder rate: 5 per 100,000.

U.K. 2009 murder rate: 1.49 per 100,000.

So far, it looks as if one has a much higher chance of getting burgled and killed in the U.S. than in the U.K.

However, the Daily Mail article says the U.K. has a violent crime rate of 2,034 per 100,000 residents, while the U.S. has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000 residents.

Definition of 'violent crime' has impact on numbers

According to the FBI, there are four crimes classified as "violent" in crime statistics: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The list does not include burglaries, which is considered a property crime in the U.S. but a violent crime in the U.K.

In addition to murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary, England and Wales classify domestic violence and all sexual offenses - not just forcible rape - as violent.

Scotland and Northern Ireland compile their own statistics and systems.

In England and Wales, sexual offenses and domestic violence contain a wide range of offenses and make up a significant part of the overall number of their violent crimes.

Sexual offenses include rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with children, soliciting prostitutes (but not prostitution itself), sexual threats, sexual touching and indecent exposure.

Domestic abuse, described as a form of "intimate personal violence," includes the following: non-sexual emotional or financial abuse, threats, physical force, sexual assault and stalking carried out by a current or former partner or other family member.

Several other crimes that are classified as violent in the U.K. include vehicle theft, purse-snatching and bicycle theft.

In all, the definition of "violent crime" takes approximately six pages to thoroughly explain. It is found in a user guide to crime statistics published by the Home Office, a U.K. government department addressing crime.

U.S. has higher rape and murder rate than England

The definition of rape is an example of how different the two countries classify crimes.

Until 2012, the FBI only counted "forcible rape" in its violent crime statistics, defining it as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."

The narrow definition has affected the FBI's overall numbers. In 2010, the Chicago Police Department could not include 1,400 sexual assaults in federal numbers because the city's definition of rape was broader than the FBI's definition.

In England and Wales, a person is guilty of rape if "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of the complainant with his penis, the complainant does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe consent has been given," according to the BBC.

With these different definitions in mind, England and Wales reported 14,000 rapes in 2009. Based on a female population of approximately 27 million (although males are included in official reports), that comes out to 51 rapes per 100,000 females.

The U.S. reported 88,097 rapes in 2009, which comes out to 56 rapes per 100,000 females.

Despite having a narrower definition of rape that only includes female victims, the U.S. still has a higher rate of occurrence than England and Wales.

The U.S. also has a higher rate of murder, and most happen by way of gun: the FBI said 67.8 percent of murders in 2011 were by firearm.

More guns aren't making you safer:

In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter

 

[rockofullr]

all i know about that it sounds similar to Chomsky's manufactured consent. Which is the point I try to make when I say all these shootings with assautl rifles around the president's new term and international gun treaty coincidental at best. Combine that with more gun coverage in the press while the actual stats have been going down and I'm still very suspicious.

If you are making a point with this please come out and say it. If you are in fact implying that the government had something to do with the recent mass shootings then I would like to know so I don't waste my time arguing with crazy.