Quantcast

Gun Control

stevew

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
41,159
10,097
whoops!......

a friend of mine in high school almost ended up the same way.....he broke into his parents house after a night of drinking and was greeted by his stepfather.....buck naked and holding a .45....no shots fired....pants soiled.
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
dante said:
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...
Click to expand...
In one of our previous post, which I linked above, I wrote this:


Now I do look for truth on both sides and have not found how the crime is recorded differently. The UK records "affrays" or all fights. I looked at the FBI stat page and found the defininition, which includes aggravated assault. I believe aggravated assault can be minor, like an affray. So Dante or anyone else, I would like to see the source that says the FBI does not include this in violent crimes. My source and definition is below:

Definition

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime




To make it simpler, you can see the actual FBI verbage taht "Violent crimes are defined in the UCR PRogram as those offenses which involve force or THREAT OF FORCE." Nowwhere in there does it say a person has to be injured. If i punch someone and there is a witness or cop, I get charged w/aggravated assault. How is that different that Britain? (anit-gun people use the word affray). I don't get this sh1t from the NRA, I look it up to see what side is distorting/manipulating/lying more. I didn't read the entire canada paper because, well, it's canada. But even if there is a statement in there saying injury-oriented crimes are only reported, how can that go against the actual gov't webside providing the statistic. Seems like the author of the article took some creative authority with definition or there is another definition out there on an official gov't source that i don't know about. To make it simpler, find me respectable source that counters the actual statistic source definition.
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
stevew said:
whoops!......
Click to expand...
The shooter has not been identified, though press releases from the sheriff's office indicate that they were called to the scene on reports that a homeowner had fired shots at an intruder. Property records show the home is owned by Donald West Wilder II
Click to expand...
victim in sexual assault? no problem protecting identity
victim in home invasion? toooootally different

stay classy AP & FN
 
dante

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
SPINTECK said:
In one of our previous post, which I linked above, I wrote this:


Now I do look for truth on both sides and have not found how the crime is recorded differently. The UK records "affrays" or all fights. I looked at the FBI stat page and found the defininition, which includes aggravated assault. I believe aggravated assault can be minor, like an affray. So Dante or anyone else, I would like to see the source that says the FBI does not include this in violent crimes. My source and definition is below:

Definition

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime




To make it simpler, you can see the actual FBI verbage taht "Violent crimes are defined in the UCR PRogram as those offenses which involve force or THREAT OF FORCE." Nowwhere in there does it say a person has to be injured. If i punch someone and there is a witness or cop, I get charged w/aggravated assault. How is that different that Britain? (anit-gun people use the word affray). I don't get this sh1t from the NRA, I look it up to see what side is distorting/manipulating/lying more. I didn't read the entire canada paper because, well, it's canada. But even if there is a statement in there saying injury-oriented crimes are only reported, how can that go against the actual gov't webside providing the statistic. Seems like the author of the article took some creative authority with definition or there is another definition out there on an official gov't source that i don't know about. To make it simpler, find me respectable source that counters the actual statistic source definition.
Click to expand...
........

FBI Definition of Aggravated Assault said:
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed.
Click to expand...
How about actually reading the link you sent that instead of just going on truthiness?

(does this link work for you?)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/aggravatedassaultmain

That's the MINIMUM that's reported for the FBI Violent Crime statistics. If there is no serious injury caused, or a threat of serious injury, then it's not reported.

Compare that to England's specific definition:

Trends in violent crime
Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. In around a half of incidents identified as ‘violent crime’ by both BCS and police statistics, the violence involves no injury to the victim.
Click to expand...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1210/hosb1210?view=Binary

So the minimum requirement for FBI statistics include "severe or aggravated bodily injury", while the minimum requirement for England includes "pushing and shoving".

FFS, are you really not getting this, or are you just trolling?
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
dante said:
........



How about actually reading the link you sent that instead of just going on truthiness?

(does this link work for you?)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/aggravatedassaultmain

That's the MINIMUM that's reported for the FBI Violent Crime statistics. If there is no serious injury caused, or a threat of serious injury, then it's not reported.

Compare that to England's specific definition:



http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1210/hosb1210?view=Binary

So the minimum requirement for FBI statistics include "severe or aggravated bodily injury", while the minimum requirement for England includes "pushing and shoving".

FFS, are you really not getting this, or are you just trolling?
Click to expand...
Troll in this THINKTANK, what are you kidding me? Okay, maybe Sadistri a little, but can you blame me, he does come accross as a selfrighteous cyber bully. He should drop that jersey shrink he keeps reccomending to me, buy a gun and shoot at a range!!


So you really think prosecuters don't use "threat of" to charge/record violence in the US? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but again, it's like religion. People are going to take definitions and stats and skew them the way they want. Like I could stick to "my guns" , so to speak and say back to Sadistri, "If more guns don't make you safer, then why have all gun violence been decreasing the last 5 years while fire arm sales have gone through the roof." Both are true.
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
Now dante, if anything this is one of the few cases where someone should have a gun. If you precide over the prison system you obviously will have many enemies.

Own what you said, do mean to say the director of a prison system in this country should not own a gun?? I get the argument about untrained citizens, but a prison director shouldn't have one either?
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
Now this is one of those gun stories that is a good emotional argument against guns. Basically guy's house alarm goes off in upstairs bedroom. Owner shoots warning shot, kid doesn't leave- owner shoots and kills. Tragic that the drunk kid snuck into his neighbor's house and not his own. If I was the owner when i was single, I would simply run and leave the house. But if someone doesn't leave after breaking into an upstairs bedroom with 3 kids and baby, I don't know what I'd do. Of course I know almost all of neighbors unlike this shooter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/caleb-gordley-killed-neighbor_n_2908442.html
 
DaveW

DaveW

Space Monkey
Jul 2, 2001
11,613
3,123
The bunker at parliament
SPINTECK said:
Now dante, if anything this is one of the few cases where someone should have a gun. If you precide over the prison system you obviously will have many enemies.
Click to expand...
Even if he had a gun, you theory would only work if he ALWAYS answered his door with the gun already drawn and the safety off.
And Paranoia like that would just result in even more murders of innocent people like Yoshihiro Hattori.
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Pesqueeb said:
My favorite part of this story comes at $tinkle's expense. Sorry brother......
Click to expand...
you kidding me? we close tomorrow & with the pending plummet in property value due to the statistical doubling of the homicide rate that i will immediately take to the assessor for a taxation challenge, i'll bank me some cheddar!

who knows; maybe my wife will finally let me get a shotgun.
 
dante

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
SPINTECK said:
Troll in this THINKTANK, what are you kidding me? Okay, maybe Sadistri a little, but can you blame me, he does come accross as a selfrighteous cyber bully. He should drop that jersey shrink he keeps reccomending to me, buy a gun and shoot at a range!!


So you really think prosecuters don't use "threat of" to charge/record violence in the US? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but again, it's like religion. People are going to take definitions and stats and skew them the way they want. Like I could stick to "my guns" , so to speak and say back to Sadistri, "If more guns don't make you safer, then why have all gun violence been decreasing the last 5 years while fire arm sales have gone through the roof." Both are true.
Click to expand...
Oh F me. Are you really that incapable of looking objectively at a certain line of argument and saying "you know what, I'm wrong"? Are you really that gullible that you're defending a position based on nothing more than "I think" and "I feel"? Why are you willing to dutifully lap up a right-wing/NRA argument that has *one* source when there are a plethora of sources that disprove it (including the official FBI and UK definitions)?

And violence decreasing the last 5 years? It's down. It's also been decreasing since 1994:



and it corresponds to both the Assault Weapons Ban, a drop in gun ownership, and a rising economic environment.

Gun ownership poll:



FFS, I wish I knew why someone like yourself could take the flimsiest, most easily disputable "proof" from some right-wing group and DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH!!!! You're desperately grasping at straws to try to find *any* reason why you weren't wrong about the US/UK violent crime rate. Is it really that implausible that you've been duped by right-wing propaganda?

DaveW said:
Even if he had a gun, you theory would only work if he ALWAYS answered his door with the gun already drawn and the safety off.
Click to expand...
That was my point. The most dangerous weapon a home-invader has is a doorbell.
 
Last edited:
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
DaveW said:
Even if he had a gun, you theory would only work if he ALWAYS answered his door with the gun already drawn and the safety off.
And Paranoia like that would just result in even more murders of innocent people like Yoshihiro Hattori.
Click to expand...
It's easy to tear apartment statements. So are you are saying the director of prison does not need a gun?? probably easier to nail my statement with a peephole or 200$ camera system for house would work? Maybe it was someone he knew and he didn't have chance. I feel confident in saying that a director of a prison complex should be able to carry a gun.

That Yoshi story is sad and there are a lot of bad gun owners out there. And I'll admit that it's easy to say this b/c no one I know directly has been impacted, so for me it's still about statistics vs amount of gun freedoms.
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
dante said:
.gif[/img]

and it corresponds to both the Assault Weapons Ban, a drop in gun ownership, and a rising economic environment.



FFS, I wish I knew why someone like yourself could take the flimsiest, most easily disputable "proof" from some right-wing group and DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH!!!! You're desperately grasping at straws to try to find *any* reason why you weren't wrong about the US/UK violent crime rate. Is it really that implausible that you've been duped by right-wing propaganda?

QUOTE]

I'm not clinging to it, but you left assault out totally for your first thread that mentioned how the fbi records, which lead me to the FBI page. I didn't see the terms "weapons" in the definition I linked, so either didn't see it or you found a more detainled definition. SO I'll start to agree that it might be comparing apples to oranges. So do you feel the us violent crime rate is higher than Britain- you couldn't make that case either w/out introducting some new stats.

I don't just listen to the propaganda, I try to look it up. The whole reason I went through this process was bc/ I was on the fence, but I tipped the other way than you guys. I only have one gun and it's not used, but we will continue to disagree about gun control. FYI, this is an interesting pro-gun site. Somewhere on there are "myths debunked" and stuff. Could probably spend the rest of the decade debating that site. http://jpfo.org/

Thanks for debating this stuff and providing datat- I mean that sincerely.
Click to expand...
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
kidwoo said:
Fvcking put a slug into his head OBVIOUSLY.

Talking is just do samn difficult. Especially when you're the one with the gun in your hand. Forming those words takes effort.
Click to expand...

You can make a better point than that. How about since you brought the gun to the conflict you have to worry about it being used on yourself and your family. Now you are really twitchy to shoot first, right? It would be a tough call to be in that situation and does lend some thought to gun control. In the middle of the night, upstairs in your house there is an intruder. I know you can't relate to this, but say your 5' 6", 160 and the intruder is 6' 190. You're wife and kids are upstairs too and there is now way you're getting a baby, 4, 5 and 7 year old out quickly. Do you bet the guy doesn't have a gun? Or is just high and lost? Or is high and just wants to rob you? The possibilities are endless and it's easy to talk when you know it's just you, I was so fearless before I had kids. This guy didn't leave when confronted, but he was a drunk kid. What if the guy lunged forward, would you shoot him in the stomach or shoulder? Hopefully you and I will never know and you can continue to pontificate )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom