| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2013 06:07:13 PM · #501 |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:41:50 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and I am still waiting for someone to give me a list of the number of mass murders committed by someone wielding a hammer. |
I could only find one in the US and one in China here is the US link //abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8646035
But according to the 2011 FBI statistics Murders committed with blunt objects, hammer, club, bat was 1,659. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:42:59 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Back on topic.
... Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.
|
It would be interesting to compare just what constitutes a "violent crime" in these countries vs the USA, and then see just how violent each truly is.
Unless things have changed dramatically since I left the law enforcement environment, the crime rates in the USA on a variety of fronts was still much higher on a per capita basis than that in Canada.
Ray
|
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:45:43 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and I am still waiting for someone to give me a list of the number of mass murders committed by someone wielding a hammer. |
I could only find one in the US and one in China here is the US link //abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8646035
But according to the 2011 FBI statistics Murders committed with blunt objects, hammer, club, bat was 1,659. |
... and I would not dispute those numbers, but I was referring specifically to mass murders, and by definition, that described in your link does fit the bill.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:48:45 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Back on topic.
... Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.
|
It would be interesting to compare just what constitutes a "violent crime" in these countries vs the USA, and then see just how violent each truly is.
Unless things have changed dramatically since I left the law enforcement environment, the crime rates in the USA on a variety of fronts was still much higher on a per capita basis than that in Canada.
Ray |
Definition
In the FBI̢۪s 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.
I believe the RCMP uses the same definition as they use the Same "Violent Crime Linkage System " as the FBI. //www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tops-opst/bs-sc/viclas-salvac-eng.htm |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:49:17 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and I am still waiting for someone to give me a list of the number of mass murders committed by someone wielding a hammer. |
I could only find one in the US and one in China here is the US link //abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8646035
But according to the 2011 FBI statistics Murders committed with blunt objects, hammer, club, bat was 1,659. |
... and I would not dispute those numbers, but I was referring specifically to mass murders, and by definition, that described in your link does fit the bill.
Ray |
I know that is why I said I could only find one and that was the first link. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:52:06 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Ive got guns in my house and it seems to work out fine |
... ah yes, but my friend you have a great deal more experience, training and savy relative to the handling of firearms that the average schmoe.
Not that long ago I recall (in Canada no less) where some schmuck tried to kill (a mouse I think) with the butt of his rifle and shot his ear off.
I have over the years encountered people that I would not trust handling any sharp objects, let alone a gun... so yes I do believe that for some they are very dangerous things.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 06:59:50 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is a good idea for the head of household to own a gun. Like Spork said...crime actually went down...Put yourself in a criminal's shoes....You have decided to break into a house...but there are 2 houses. One you believe possibly has a gun and one that you know does not have a gun. Which house do you break into??? |
s
... depends on a variety of factors. Are the occupants at home, if not, is there a chance the gun is not secured, is there a chance I can get a new gun? ... all of these are issues of consideration. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 07:23:10 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and I am still waiting for someone to give me a list of the number of mass murders committed by someone wielding a hammer. |
I could only find one in the US and one in China here is the US link //abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8646035
But according to the 2011 FBI statistics Murders committed with blunt objects, hammer, club, bat was 1,659. |
And how many miles were traveled by horseless carriage? Outlaw the modern automobile, and people will go back to them. Outlaw them and it's back to horse and carriage. Outlaw the carriage entirely and you'll have people riding horses.
It's pretty much the same thing here, outlaw the guns, and next they'll use the blades, after the blades it'll be the bats, etc.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2013 07:25:26 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is a good idea for the head of household to own a gun. Like Spork said...crime actually went down...Put yourself in a criminal's shoes....You have decided to break into a house...but there are 2 houses. One you believe possibly has a gun and one that you know does not have a gun. Which house do you break into??? |
s
... depends on a variety of factors. Are the occupants at home, if not, is there a chance the gun is not secured, is there a chance I can get a new gun? ... all of these are issues of consideration. :O)
Ray |
Secured? How secure do you really think you can reasonably expect people to be? |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 07:46:07 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is a good idea for the head of household to own a gun. Like Spork said...crime actually went down...Put yourself in a criminal's shoes....You have decided to break into a house...but there are 2 houses. One you believe possibly has a gun and one that you know does not have a gun. Which house do you break into??? |
s
... depends on a variety of factors. Are the occupants at home, if not, is there a chance the gun is not secured, is there a chance I can get a new gun? ... all of these are issues of consideration. :O)
Ray |
Secured? How secure do you really think you can reasonably expect people to be? |
I can assure you that if these tools would not enable a potential thief to gain access to any weapon that I might have in my possession... but that's me and not unlike yourself I spent years working on target hardening.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 07:47:00 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and I am still waiting for someone to give me a list of the number of mass murders committed by someone wielding a hammer. |
I could only find one in the US and one in China here is the US link //abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8646035
But according to the 2011 FBI statistics Murders committed with blunt objects, hammer, club, bat was 1,659. |
And how many miles were traveled by horseless carriage? Outlaw the modern automobile, and people will go back to them. Outlaw them and it's back to horse and carriage. Outlaw the carriage entirely and you'll have people riding horses.
It's pretty much the same thing here, outlaw the guns, and next they'll use the blades, after the blades it'll be the bats, etc. |
... and your point is???
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 07:54:52 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
And how many miles were traveled by horseless carriage? Outlaw the modern automobile, and people will go back to them. Outlaw them and it's back to horse and carriage. Outlaw the carriage entirely and you'll have people riding horses.
It's pretty much the same thing here, outlaw the guns, and next they'll use the blades, after the blades it'll be the bats, etc. |
... and your point is???
Ray |
Just that it's likely that the low incidence rate is simply due to the fact that, while knives are good enough for the job, guns are indeed better at it. So it's not that knives are unsuccessful at causing high numbers of casualties, but rather that most people who are out to cause a high number of casualties don't choose a knife as their tool of choice.
Remember, our goal is to stop events like this from happening, to stop people from being killed. If another, nearly as effective, weapon is readily available, then it's unlikely that a ban will do any good. (by the way, we banned pot years ago, along with heroin, meth and cocaine. None of those are exactly hard to find today, despite a VERY expensive eradication effort)
There's a good question - people like to point out the gun control success in Japan and Switzerland. What do their drug policies look like? How successful have those been there? It's a hypothesis, but I'd wager a guess that those countries have been much more successful than the US in that effort as well, and probably at an insanely lower cost. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 07:59:44 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
NONE of these shooters/mass murderers are affluent, and this type of behavior(pay me), tends to be well correlated with poverty. |
I thought most of these mass shootings were carried out by middle-class white men. |
Not only that, but most of them are well educated and or fairly intelligent (albeit mostly insane). Most serial killers are middle class white guys, too. I say we outlaw middle class white guys. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 08:02:23 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I say we outlaw middle class white guys. |
Or just appoint them to the President's Cabinet ... :-( |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 08:14:16 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
NONE of these shooters/mass murderers are affluent, and this type of behavior(pay me), tends to be well correlated with poverty. |
I thought most of these mass shootings were carried out by middle-class white men. |
Not only that, but most of them are well educated and or fairly intelligent (albeit mostly insane). Most serial killers are middle class white guys, too. I say we outlaw middle class white guys. |
Oh, I wouldn't classify middle class people as being affluent. In fact, the middle class are probably the most likely to feel entitled, and yet be close enough to the edge to really suffer true failure - leading to the meltdown that these shooters seem to have occur right before the shooting spree begins.
Affluence in my usage above would refer to a person who has an assured position of comfort in life- either through their own actions, or through family money... This would not include people who have been cut out of the family wealth but do come from the affluent background - however I think they are somewhat less likely to go full meltdown for a variety of reasons.
ETA: I probably should have said "desperation" in place of "poverty" in my original statement, as it's much closer to my intended meaning.
Message edited by author 2013-01-10 20:16:13. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 09:03:08 PM · #517 |
I'm gonna say that the Colorado guy, the Giffords shooter, the VA Tech guy, and most definitely the chickenshit who shot kids guy were all "assured of a comfortable position in life." None was poverty-level, and the last one was most definitely "affluent".
The dirt-poor and women are severely underrepresented as mass killers. Which is good. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 09:20:01 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
The dirt-poor ... severely underrepresented as mass killers. Which is good. |
however they do represent and often are what most gun owners wish to protect themselves against.
Message edited by author 2013-01-10 21:20:17. |
|
|
|
01/10/2013 11:51:53 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm gonna say that the Colorado guy, the Giffords shooter, the VA Tech guy, and most definitely the chickenshit who shot kids guy were all "assured of a comfortable position in life." None was poverty-level, and the last one was most definitely "affluent".
The dirt-poor and women are severely underrepresented as mass killers. Which is good. |
Ummm.. Affluent means something different to you... To me it means "great wealth". |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:30:11 AM · #520 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
The problem, as I see it, is essentially that the threat of death by a gun does serve to curb crime. Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
In the US about 27% of households own a gun. In Canada about 22% own a gun. Do you think that 5% of gun ownership makes the difference?
Of course Canadians largely own hunting weapons, while Americans like to carry their weapons into bars and the like, so that may be why we have less fighting, and more killing. |
Carrying a weapon into a bar is actually not permitted unless the "primary" business is to serve food. Additionally, the carrying of a firearm while intoxicated is a crime and punishable by the minimum of revocation of one's CCW (aka CPL). Further, the use of a firearm - even in self defense - while under the influence of alcohol is extremely prejudicial to your case. I know plenty of people who carry and plenty who will drink at a public house - but none who do both at the same time. It is literally against the law here. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:32:05 AM · #521 |
Affluent to me means great wealth as well. His mother was apparently wealthy and had a healthy alimony/child support agreement; the news reported the neighborhood as "prosperous", and the pictures of the house lend credence to the "prosperous" assessment. Affluent does not have to mean "Bill Gates", which is a whole 'nuther class of affluent altogether.
House pictured here |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:45:17 AM · #522 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Back on topic.
... Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.
|
It would be interesting to compare just what constitutes a "violent crime" in these countries vs the USA, and then see just how violent each truly is.
Unless things have changed dramatically since I left the law enforcement environment, the crime rates in the USA on a variety of fronts was still much higher on a per capita basis than that in Canada.
Ray |
Here you go |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:49:33 AM · #523 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
NONE of these shooters/mass murderers are affluent, and this type of behavior(pay me), tends to be well correlated with poverty. |
I thought most of these mass shootings were carried out by middle-class white men. |
Not only that, but most of them are well educated and or fairly intelligent (albeit mostly insane). Most serial killers are middle class white guys, too. I say we outlaw middle class white guys. |
;-} |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:51:44 AM · #524 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I say we outlaw middle class white guys. |
Or just appoint them to the President's Cabinet ... :-( |
General - you're not the only one who bought the story line...
It does stretch credibility remembering the depths they went to, to disparage Mitt and his "binders". |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:55:05 AM · #525 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Melethia:
The dirt-poor ... severely underrepresented as mass killers. Which is good. |
however they do represent and often are what most gun owners wish to protect themselves against. |
No. We want to protect ourselves and those under our care from anyone who threatens their safety. Be it an inner city gang member, career criminal, a person having a bad hair day, one on prescription meds or a lunatic. Simple really.
eta: I am simply amazed at those who would FORCE disarmamament on this woman and believe she is better off as a dead victim.
What is really eyeopening are some of the comments at the bottom of the article referencing those areas/states that do not have "castle doctrine" language - not even for one's home. That sir, is the kind of enviornment I believe you are in favor of. I hope I never see it.
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 02:16:45. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 02:13:07 PM EDT.
