Tech leaders join gun control push after YouTube shooting

[Taf the Ghost]

If you're going to compare per-capita murder rates, you've already lost whatever argument you're going to make. If you don't know what the breakdown of the US Murder rate looks like, I'd recommend running away very quickly. You're going to have to face some really uncomfortable facts about who is doing the Killing and who is getting Killed. That's why they run up the occasional mass shooting (which is almost always a "Known Wolf" attack) for the Media. Even discussing the reality is utterly un-PC still.

 

Then there's the fun part: if your aren't taking into account the Suicide Rate, with the Murder Rate, you're missing out on any useful picture of a society.

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I mean the topic is really tech companies hopping on the gun control wagon. What other comparison do I have than a nearly identical city in a place with very strict gun control?

But you demonstrated a FLAWED comparison and were clearly corrected that London's annual, PER CAPITA murder rate, is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than New York City's.  You are NOT proving your point.

 

Then we have this.  Now, this is actual numbers, NOT per capita, but if you look at the NUMBER of Murder's in London, you can see that it was on a decline until about 2012 where it PLATEAUED.  There is no stark increase in the number murders in London.  And yes, New York's is ALSO on a decline.  Almost ALL kinds of Crime in all western nations has been on a decline for the last 15-25 years. (DESPITE how many people are convinced that we are inching closer to a Mad Max style apocalypse) However there is one glaring exception in the United States; Mass shootings.  Mass shootings in the United States are on a stark incline.

 

 

[TidaLWaveZ]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

And to be clear, ONE OF THOSE CITIES HAS A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER MURDER RATE, DESPITE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY.

Not in the first three months of 2018.

 

Nobody is arguing that London is a deadlier place than New York City in general. I'm just providing a real life example of strict gun laws not being the end all answer.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

Not in the first three months of 2018.

 

Nobody is arguing that London is a deadlier place than New York City in general. I'm just providing a real life example of strict gun laws not being the end all answer.

So from this am I to understand that you can't comprehend how flawed focusing on a specific narrow window of time is?

[Drak3]

22 minutes ago, dizmo said:

get what you're saying, but surely you can't dismiss the fact that if the assault rifle wasn't available to begin with, chances are there'd have been much less of a rampage, or the individual might not have bothered at all.

Assault rifles are illegal to own without a class 3 firearms licence, and even then, only those manufactured prior to '86 are legal to own without an FFL (dealer's license).

[TidaLWaveZ]

8 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So from this am I to understand that you can't comprehend how flawed focusing on a specific narrow window of time is?

I'll just post the same thing again since you seem to ignore it and instead criticize my comprehension of statistics, which was addressed in my first sentence.

 

Nobody is arguing that London is a deadlier place than New York City in general. I'm just providing a real life example of strict gun laws not being the end all answer.

[dizmo]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Assault rifles are illegal to own without a class 3 firearms licence, and even then, only those manufactured prior to '86 are legal to own without an FFL (dealer's license).

So you just need a drivers license? That's not hard to get. It also doesn't appear that the Class 3 license is hard to get at all, and from what I quickly read only applies to vendors not the end user. Simply put, there's no reason to own something with a large capacity magazine.

[weez]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

A statistic on stabbings isn't particularly useful unless you can compare it, PER CAPITA, to that of another nation, usually the nation you are drawing comparisons with in the first place.

 

Though a critical comparison would be the overall murder rates.  In the United States the murder rare is 4.88 per 100 000 citzens where as in the United Kingdom the murder rate is 0.92 per 100 000 citizens.  ...So you can't exactly make a solid argument that British aren't, by one means or another, doing a better at keeping their citizens from killing each other than the United States is.

Those numbers tell an incomplete story. If you take out gang related violence from Chicago then you have a much lower number. And that's just one city. Numbers without context are useless. 

 

Just like homicide with firearms. Anti gun groups like to put all homicides in to make a bigger number. But if you break down those numbers you'll see that gang related violence and suicides account for 95% or more of gun related violence. 

 

Gangs will still have guns and if someone wants to kill themselves there's lots of ways to do it

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'll just post the same thing again since you seem to ignore it and instead criticize my comprehension of statistics, which was addressed in my first sentence.

 

Nobody is arguing that London is a deadlier place than New York City in general. I'm just providing a real life example of strict gun laws not being the end all answer.

But that's not an example of that at all.  Murder rates in short periods of times will go up or down, this is why it is critical to look at larger windows of time.  This is why this ALSO doesn't work the other way around.  If the murder rate in London showed a remarkable drop for ONLY a 3 month window, that doesn't prove that there's a stark decline in the murder rate, it's just a blip that is ironed out by looking at the big picture.

 

This is why you also couldn't say, look at the single day where 50 people were murdered in Las Vegas and declare 'LAS VEGAS JUST AS DANGEROUS AS IRAQ!'

[TheKDub]

24 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I didn't say that as a stereotype or reference to her religion

Racism has nothing to do with religion.

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Assault rifles are illegal to own without a class 3 firearms licence, and even then, only those manufactured prior to '86 are legal to own without an FFL (dealer's license).

I think you mean automatic firearms, not "assault rifles".

[DildorTheDecent]

31 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Acid terrifies me. A lot more than a knife.

Acid isn't all that ba...oh wait...wrong acid.

 

Seriously though, as terrifying as the acid attacks sounds the overall recoveries don't look too bad.

 

Would still be fairly traumatising tho.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

So you just need a drivers license? That's not hard to get. It also doesn't appear that the Class 3 license is hard to get at all, and from what I quickly read only applies to vendors not the end user. Simply put, there's no reason to own something with a large capacity magazine.

No, a class 3 FIREARM license.

 

Assault rifles, select fire weaponry designed around intermediate cartridges and being fired from the shoulder, are an ATF regulated item, and a legal machine gun.

 

Whereas the Armalite Rifle (model) 15 is an American sporting rifle designed for use in competition shooting, varmint hunting, law enforcement use, and self defence. It would be retrofitted by Colt into the M16, a then inferior combat rifle.

 

And there absolutely is reason for high capacity magazines: shooting for sport/pleasure. Magazine capacity has no affect on one sided violence.

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, TheKDub said:

think you mean automatic firearms, not "assault rifles".

No, I mean Assault Rifles. Assault Rifles are select fire, meaning they offer full automatic fire or multiple round burst fire in addition to semiautomatic fire.

 

Whereas the AR15, and nearly ALL autoloading rifles in the US, are semiautomatic autoloading rifles.

[Ryujin2003]

1 hour ago, TheKDub said:

I hear stabbings are pretty hot though.

37,443 knife offenses and 6,694 gun offenses from Jan to Sept 2017 (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbing-knife-crime-rise-statistics-uk-deaths/)

 

We've known this is the States for while... If someone wants to hurt someone else, they will find a way.

[TheKDub]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, a class 3 FIREARM license.

 

Assault rifles, select fire weaponry designed around intermediate cartridges and being fired from the shoulder, are an ATF regulated item, and a legal machine gun.

 

Whereas the Armalite Rifle (model) 15 is an American sporting rifle designed for use in competition shooting, varmint hunting, law enforcement use, and self defence. It would be retrofitted by Colt into the M16, a then inferior combat rifle.

 

And there absolutely is reason for high capacity magazines: shooting for sport/pleasure. Magazine capacity has no affect on one sided violence.

Define "High Capacity".

 

For something like an AR-15, a 30 round magazine is a standard magazine, whereas something like a 10 or 20 round magazine for an AR-15 would be considered a low capacity magazine.

 

A high capacity magazine would be like a 50 or 100 round drum magazine, which you don't see being used much due to their size and weight.

[knightslugger]

i can inject a little expert testimony to the technicalities of title 2 firearms possession in America. I have several. I know the process. I know what is and isn't.

 

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

high capacity magazine would be like a 50 or 100 round drum magazine, which you don't see being used much due to their size and weight

In case of 100+, also reliability.

 

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

Define "High Capacity".

 

For something like an AR-15, a 30 round magazine is a standard magazine, whereas something like a 10 or 20 round magazine for an AR-15 would be considered a low capacity magazine.

I got PMag 40rders, fucking things only hold like 9 rounds.

 

Spoiler

.458 Socom rounds that is.

Spoiler

Hehe

 

 

[Ryujin2003]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, I mean Assault Rifles. Assault Rifles are select fire, meaning they offer full automatic fire or multiple round burst fire in addition to semiautomatic fire.

 

Whereas the AR15, and nearly ALL autoloading rifles in the US, are semiautomatic autoloading rifles.

Miriam Webster changed the definition for assult rifle: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle-parkland-shooting/

 

Quote

noun: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

But I don't agree with using the term military adult rifle. First using the word in it's own definition is dumb. Secondly, that's not what the military calls them. It's a civilian term.

[dizmo]

33 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I didn't say that as a stereotype or reference to her religion

What I meant is that gun control laws is not the answer

Because she could have used some other weapon that is just as or even more lethal

It is not the guns fault but the intent to harm or kill

 

Btw I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion

Last thing they need is knee jerk gun control measures that may backfire

The people who will agree to give up arms are lawful people

Crazy people who are determined to kill are not lawful people

I know it's probably not at all what you meant, but you've got to look at what you said; you tied someone of Middle Eastern descent with an IED.
Why? There's loads of other weapons you could have chosen. You also didn't have to mention her descent at all, as really, it's not relevant.

IEDs are also much, much harder to come across than a gun.

 

Yeah, gun control needs a lot of well thought out plans, interaction with the public, meetings, etc. Which we won't see with the NRA.

Really, it would all start with studies. But as long as you can stick your head in the sand, why look at the scary world you're living in right?

3 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Acid isn't all that ba...oh wait...wrong acid.

 

Seriously though, as terrifying as the acid attacks sounds the overall recoveries don't look too bad.

 

Would still be fairly traumatising tho.

A lot of them are absolutely brutal though and can leave you disfigured for life. I imagine it depends on acid type, concentration, and many many other factors. Still the thought is horrifying. At least with a knife, if you keep the person at a distance you're less likely to get impacted.

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, a class 3 FIREARM license.

 

Assault rifles, select fire weaponry designed around intermediate cartridges and being fired from the shoulder, are an ATF regulated item, and a legal machine gun.

 

Whereas the Armalite Rifle (model) 15 is an American sporting rifle designed for use in competition shooting, varmint hunting, law enforcement use, and self defence. It would be retrofitted by Colt into the M16, a then inferior combat rifle.

 

And there absolutely is reason for high capacity magazines: shooting for sport/pleasure. Magazine capacity has no affect on one sided violence.

Ahhhhh I read that wrong. I blame the DayQuil. Still, it doesn't appear to be that hard to acquire. I also class things such as a MAC10 to be assault style weapons; something that honestly has no real use except as a novelty.

 

I completely disagree with the last statement. High capacity magazines enable mass shootings. Plain and simple. Canada limits magazines to 5 rounds, and while that can't be claimed as the only reason we don't have such shootings, it surely plays a part.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

I completely disagree with the last statement. High capacity magazines enable mass shootings. Plain and simple. Canada limits magazines to 5 rounds, and while that can't be claimed as the only reason we don't have such shootings, it surely plays a part.

parkland shooter used 10 rd magazines.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Secondly, that's not what the military calls them. It's a civilian term.

It's not a civi term. It's derived from the Sturmgewher 44's name, but it's not currently what the US military calls their M16/M4 rifles.

 

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

completely disagree with the last statement. High capacity magazines enable mass shootings. Plain and simple. Canada limits magazines to 5 rounds, and while that can't be claimed as the only reason we don't have such shootings, it surely plays a part

It plays no part. There is no consequence to reloading every 5 rounds when you're firing on unarmed civilians.

 

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Still, it doesn't appear to be that hard to acquire.

Class 3 is extremely hard to acquire, and even then, legal weapons are expensive and few.

 

[bcredeur97]

I find it interesting that big shootings seem to happen more and more after one initially happens.

 

you can almost make a conspiracy theory on it...

[TheKDub]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Ahhhhh I read that wrong. I blame the DayQuil. Still, it doesn't appear to be that hard to acquire. I also class things such as a MAC10 to be assault style weapons; something that honestly has no real use except as a novelty.

https://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Class-3-Firearms-License

 

It's a bit of a process.

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I completely disagree with the last statement. High capacity magazines enable mass shootings. Plain and simple. Canada limits magazines to 5 rounds, and while that can't be claimed as the only reason we don't have such shootings, it surely plays a part.

You do realize that anyone with some practice can swap a magazine out in seconds and be ready to fire more.

The parkland kid was using 10 round magazines. He fired over 100 rounds in less than 5 minutes.

[colonel_mortis]

Despite the big red banner (and the Community Standards) banning political discussion, this thread has gone there again.

Topic locked. Make sure we don't need to lock the other one as well.