Empty those pockets

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

Perhaps you missed where I generally don’t hand out answers to questions.  I wouldn’t be a very good professor if I did, would I?  

But a good start here would be to simply eliminate funding restrictions on gun violence research.  As @Foghorn pointed out, over many years we managed to significantly reduce motor vehicle deaths.  Part of what got us to good things to do in that space, things that worked, was studying the problem, running experiments, etc.  Why not do the same with gun deaths?  At the moment, we spend a very small fraction of the funds to study this problem that we continue to spend studying motor vehicle deaths, even though the rates are comparable.  Eliminate the restrictions, and you’ll get many more than 5, some of which might even work.

Agree completely.  As evidenced by my peer reviewed, triple vetted, Obama initiated and sanctioned study posted above

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

Perhaps you missed where I generally don’t hand out answers to questions.  I wouldn’t be a very good professor if I did, would I?  

But a good start here would be to simply eliminate funding restrictions on gun violence research.  As @Foghorn pointed out, over many years we managed to significantly reduce motor vehicle deaths.  Part of what got us to good things to do in that space, things that worked, was studying the problem, running experiments, etc.  Why not do the same with gun deaths?  At the moment, we spend a very small fraction of the funds to study this problem that we continue to spend studying motor vehicle deaths, even though the rates are comparable.  Eliminate the restrictions, and you’ll get many more than 5, some of which might even work.

Agree completely.  As evidenced by my peer reviewed, triple vetted, Obama initiated and sanctioned study posted above

That paper was many things but what I can say for sure is that it wasn't peer-reviewed by anyone, unless by "peer review" we mean asking the same people who work in your office to read your paper for you.

In any case, I'm glad you support my suggestion that we should eliminate the restrictions on funding research in this space.  That's progress!

Botch

JohnInCarolina said:
I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

If I may, since this thread has a half-life closer to cobalt 60, I'd like to throw something out:  Does anyone else here watch, at least on occasion, news sources that you normally disparage, or disagree with?  
The single smartest thing I did in 2017, was take a vacation day when James Comey testified before the congressional hearing.  I left the laptop in the other room, did not have a newspaper or mag in my lap, I sat and listened to the testimony, as carefully as I could.  When they broke for the Classified portion, I set my DVR to record the next hour of news on Fox, CNN, PBS, and I also watched CBS live that hour (my DVR can only record 3 channels at once, while I watched the fourth).  I then watched the 3 recorded channels too.  
A couple things, I expected; I was surprised about a third thing, but it really changed my alignment to news sources.  I'm not going to tell you whom I thought was the most accurate, I think everyone here should do this and make up their own mind.
Has anyone here done something similar?  

JohnInCarolina

Botch said:

JohnInCarolina said:
I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

If I may, since this thread has a half-life closer to cobalt 60, I'd like to throw something out:  Does anyone else here watch, at least on occasion, news sources that you normally disparage, or disagree with?  

I have watched Fox News on occasion.  I work with the DoD quite a bit and it is invariably the news channel of choice in a lot of areas, so that it's inescapable.

More broadly I avoid cable news in general because I don't find it to be an efficient means to acquire information.  I prefer to simply read.  And here at least I do read from a variety of sources.  

Foghorn

My wife usually has CNN on in the morning.  I read both CNN and Fox on the interwebs pretty much every day.  I have not been a systematic about it as you have @Botch, but I have seen some things live for myself and then seen the subsequent coverage on both sites.  I can't say that I have found one site to be significantly more accurate than the other in total.  For a given story, I guess it depends on who is writing for each network.  Sometimes one site is terribly biased, sometimes it is both, sometimes it is neither.  

milesvdustin

The biggest thing I have seen between networks is which stories they will highlight and make a priority. If you read or watch them all you have a good general idea of all sides and what's going on. That's my take. 

I read drudge, fox, CNN, MSNBC daily 

lkapigian

There is not one news source that is not biased , whether it be MSNBC CNN FoX. Or any Biased Youtube channel on either side , make your own mind and decision and please don't Slay someone who has another opinion ......show respect 

If I ran a business without an open,mind , and with anger and hostility ....well, I would be out of business 

I so much want to say "Knock it the Fuvck Off"....guess I just did, enough shake hands and cook 

Eoin

GrateEggspectations said:

I get the importance of tackling knife crime, but I don’t get why discussions touching upon the irrefutably low rates of gun violence in the U.K. (a result of effective gun policies) keep resulting in a focus on a meager (and seemingly un noteworthy, relative to the U.S.) number of knife deaths across several threads in this forum. 

It may be surprising to some, but I just spent a good chunk of time in the U.K. and didn’t get stabbed even once. 

It comes up because The Donald used it in a speech (I think to the NRA) equating UK knife crime / deaths with US gun crime / deaths as a means of showing that gun controls don't work because people just use knives instead.  As I said, we have a knife crime problem, but it is not remotely comparable to the numbers involved in US gun crime / deaths.

frazzdaddy

Botch said:

JohnInCarolina said:
I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

If I may, since this thread has a half-life closer to cobalt 60, I'd like to throw something out:  Does anyone else here watch, at least on occasion, news sources that you normally disparage, or disagree with?  
The single smartest thing I did in 2017, was take a vacation day when James Comey testified before the congressional hearing.  I left the laptop in the other room, did not have a newspaper or mag in my lap, I sat and listened to the testimony, as carefully as I could.  When they broke for the Classified portion, I set my DVR to record the next hour of news on Fox, CNN, PBS, and I also watched CBS live that hour (my DVR can only record 3 channels at once, while I watched the fourth).  I then watched the 3 recorded channels too.  
A couple things, I expected; I was surprised about a third thing, but it really changed my alignment to news sources.  I'm not going to tell you whom I thought was the most accurate, I think everyone here should do this and make up their own mind.
Has anyone here done something similar?  

I do, for the same reasons you stated. My lovely bride thought I was crazy when I started but it does highlight some things. Now she does as well and we compare our findings.

frazzdaddy

bgebrent said:

frazzdaddy said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

do we get your 5 as well?

I don’t have plenty of things like John.  I’ve already stated more spending on mental health, indigent included and education about warning signs and speaking up if there’s a concern.  You?

I am a strong supporter of revisions in gun ownership laws and a focus on the mental stability of said owners. I ended my association with the NRA years ago and as @YukonRon said will not rejoin without them returning to their roots.   

bgebrent

frazzdaddy said:

bgebrent said:

frazzdaddy said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

do we get your 5 as well?

I don’t have plenty of things like John.  I’ve already stated more spending on mental health, indigent included and education about warning signs and speaking up if there’s a concern.  You?

I am a strong supporter of revisions in gun ownership laws and a focus on the mental stability of said owners. I ended my association with the NRA years ago and as @YukonRon said will not rejoin without them returning to their roots.   

I gave up the NRA about 7-8 years ago. 

DoubleEgger

fishlessman

Botch said:

JohnInCarolina said:
I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

If I may, since this thread has a half-life closer to cobalt 60, I'd like to throw something out:  Does anyone else here watch, at least on occasion, news sources that you normally disparage, or disagree with?  
The single smartest thing I did in 2017, was take a vacation day when James Comey testified before the congressional hearing.  I left the laptop in the other room, did not have a newspaper or mag in my lap, I sat and listened to the testimony, as carefully as I could.  When they broke for the Classified portion, I set my DVR to record the next hour of news on Fox, CNN, PBS, and I also watched CBS live that hour (my DVR can only record 3 channels at once, while I watched the fourth).  I then watched the 3 recorded channels too.  
A couple things, I expected; I was surprised about a third thing, but it really changed my alignment to news sources.  I'm not going to tell you whom I thought was the most accurate, I think everyone here should do this and make up their own mind.
Has anyone here done something similar?  

i watched msnbc for the trump/hill election year,  matthews pretty much had nothing bad to say about trump for the year before, a week after and he pulled a 180.  if you didnt watch the season finale with maddow, you missed some of the best cable of the year. it was an interesting experiment to say the least.  mornin joe is a riot

fishlessman

Eoin said:

GrateEggspectations said:

I get the importance of tackling knife crime, but I don’t get why discussions touching upon the irrefutably low rates of gun violence in the U.K. (a result of effective gun policies) keep resulting in a focus on a meager (and seemingly un noteworthy, relative to the U.S.) number of knife deaths across several threads in this forum. 

It may be surprising to some, but I just spent a good chunk of time in the U.K. and didn’t get stabbed even once. 

It comes up because The Donald used it in a speech (I think to the NRA) equating UK knife crime / deaths with US gun crime / deaths as a means of showing that gun controls don't work because people just use knives instead.  As I said, we have a knife crime problem, but it is not remotely comparable to the numbers involved in US gun crime / deaths.

i did not know that, i just brought it up because i heard about stabbings in england on the bbc on my monday morning 2 hour commute,  just got sirius radio last week for the first time, no more idiotic talk radio for that commute hopefully.  i actually was not being political about the knives.

YukonRon

theyolksonyou said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Battleborn said:

Comparing the U.S. with anywhere (U.K., Australia, etc.) is fallacious. Those countries weren't founded with the idea that citizenry should be able to protect itself from a tyrannical government. 

Wasn’t Australia founded by... convicts?

Didn’t they have a mass shooting, like today?

One. First of the year, from a felon released from prison which obtained a shotgun, stolen in 1997. 
4 people were killed.

fishlessman

anyways....a friend of mine back 30 years shot himself in the heart after finding out he had a week or two to live, but my brother was stabbed, a roommate was stabbed, an employee here that had just gotten fired was stabbed to death, and on my way to school one day i came across 2 gangs in a brutal knife fight.......the govt math isnt adding up here..... i know, things have changed, its not the 80's

the roommate stabbing was spectacular, gut wound and he was standing behind a large fan

and should a gang fight with knives be considered  a mass stabbing

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman said:

anyways....a friend of mine back 30 years shot himself in the heart after finding out he had a week or two to live, but my brother was stabbed, a roommate was stabbed, an employee here that had just gotten fired was stabbed to death, and on my way to school one day i came across 2 gangs in a brutal knife fight.......the govt math isnt adding up here..... i know, things have changed, its not the 80's

the roommate stabbing was spectacular, gut wound and he was standing behind a large fan

and should a gang fight with knives be considered  a mass stabbing

so many details

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

anyways....a friend of mine back 30 years shot himself in the heart after finding out he had a week or two to live, but my brother was stabbed, a roommate was stabbed, an employee here that had just gotten fired was stabbed to death, and on my way to school one day i came across 2 gangs in a brutal knife fight.......the govt math isnt adding up here..... i know, things have changed, its not the 80's

the roommate stabbing was spectacular, gut wound and he was standing behind a large fan

and should a gang fight with knives be considered  a mass stabbing

so many details

thats what happens watching 12 months straight of msnbc

Eoin

fishlessman said:

Eoin said:

GrateEggspectations said:

I get the importance of tackling knife crime, but I don’t get why discussions touching upon the irrefutably low rates of gun violence in the U.K. (a result of effective gun policies) keep resulting in a focus on a meager (and seemingly un noteworthy, relative to the U.S.) number of knife deaths across several threads in this forum. 

It may be surprising to some, but I just spent a good chunk of time in the U.K. and didn’t get stabbed even once. 

It comes up because The Donald used it in a speech (I think to the NRA) equating UK knife crime / deaths with US gun crime / deaths as a means of showing that gun controls don't work because people just use knives instead.  As I said, we have a knife crime problem, but it is not remotely comparable to the numbers involved in US gun crime / deaths.

i did not know that, i just brought it up because i heard about stabbings in england on the bbc on my monday morning 2 hour commute,  just got sirius radio last week for the first time, no more idiotic talk radio for that commute hopefully.  i actually was not being political about the knives.

I know you weren't being political 

Eoin

fishlessman said:

anyways....a friend of mine back 30 years shot himself in the heart after finding out he had a week or two to live, but my brother was stabbed, a roommate was stabbed, an employee here that had just gotten fired was stabbed to death, and on my way to school one day i came across 2 gangs in a brutal knife fight.......the govt math isnt adding up here..... i know, things have changed, its not the 80's

the roommate stabbing was spectacular, gut wound and he was standing behind a large fan

and should a gang fight with knives be considered  a mass stabbing

A lot of the knife crime that we have is gang related, so yes it would be reported.

Legume

I’m glad this has been a relatively civil conversation and we’re finally getting to focus on knives.

alaskanassasin

@fishlessman I would ccw in your neck of the woods!

lkapigian

For you Carlin Fans

https://youtu.be/6T2Ok3EzdMM

fishlessman

alaskanassasin said:

@fishlessman I would ccw in your neck of the woods!

nobody bothers the guy with an ax

KKoterski

Not many people remember that not that long ago, firearm safety and marksmanship was taught in public schools. Likewise, firearms were even easier to purchase than they are today. I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a catalog.

Bottom line is that firearms have not changed. People have.

If I want to kill someone, how do I determine how it's done? If I have a firearm, knife, or a hammer, what do I choose? Well obviously the firearm is most effective and vastly easier to use. Now look at the UK, now your options are a knife and hammer. Well the knife is more likely to cause the damage I want, so the knife. No knife? Hammer. No hammer? Find something else.

If I want to kill someone, the tool is irrelevant. Outlaw everything and I'll use my hands. People did it for years before firearms and were perfectly capable of killing each other. 

A firearm is a machine, a tool. It only does what the operator makes it do. When there is a machine being used to kill people, do we blame an inanimate object, or the person operating it?

There was an attack in Europe a while back that killed a bunch of people and the attacker used a truck to plow through crowds. So should we ban trucks next?

On an unrelated topic, when did humanity make the shift of "I disagree with you, so now I hate you and you must die". I disagree with people all the time, but difference in thought is what makes us human. If we were all the same, it'd be boring as hell. Just food for thought. Don't hate your neighbor because you disagree, just understand that not everyone thinks like you or has the same opinion as you. AND THAT'S OK.

frazzdaddy

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

fishlessman

Eoin said:

fishlessman said:

anyways....a friend of mine back 30 years shot himself in the heart after finding out he had a week or two to live, but my brother was stabbed, a roommate was stabbed, an employee here that had just gotten fired was stabbed to death, and on my way to school one day i came across 2 gangs in a brutal knife fight.......the govt math isnt adding up here..... i know, things have changed, its not the 80's

the roommate stabbing was spectacular, gut wound and he was standing behind a large fan

and should a gang fight with knives be considered  a mass stabbing

A lot of the knife crime that we have is gang related, so yes it would be reported.

its reported here as well but not in the same manner as the great gun debates. stab someone here and a first offense stabbing might be 200 bucks and kick in with medical bills. atleast thats what ive seen in the court room where i was brought in as a witness.  someone just mentioning they will get their gun even if they dont have one is bigger than actually stabbing someone

JohnInCarolina

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

It is a bit of cognitive dissonance to believe that people have changed significantly but that their access to dangerous weapons should not.  

Legume

Hyperbole of course, but strictly following this line we shouldn't have any objection to any weapons, including nuclear, because it's the people.

It's both, it has to be.  I'm not sure I've seen anyone on here be completely anti-gun, as in take away all guns in America.  I see people quote the stats from UK and other non or extremely limited gun countries and I see the no-limits gun advocates say you can't take them all away, etc.

Taking and arguing extreme positions is one of the worst cultural erosions we've seen from where we started and remained for our first couple of centuries.  It's the enemy of progress, it's fear-based, it's immature, it's self-centered.

frazzdaddy

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

It is a bit of cognitive dissonance to believe that people have changed significantly but that their access to dangerous weapons should not.  

I forgot to add that, no you can't outlaw trucks but you can isolate pedestrians from them. I never saw many metal detectors or concrete barriers growing up, now they are a fact of life.