Isn't it pretty common knowledge that any comparison of official violent crime between the US and UK isn't apples to apples since the UKs measure is far more inclusive?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a simple bar fight where arrests are made included?

4/25/2013 8:57:58 AM

Yes, it would be counted, but not if charges were dropped (for whatever reason).

Crime statistics in the UK are based on the final disposition.

In the US its initial data, the bar fight would be recorded regardless of outcome. Thats the real reason this is apples to oranges.

That stupid shit GeniusBoy had his opportunity to use such information against that cunt Piers Morgan and squandered it.

4/25/2013 9:30:45 AM

that's not universally true about all data sets, just check what they are for what you are using

4/25/2013 10:55:51 AM

Concealed weapon expansion OK'd by North Carolina House panel
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=9078110

would allow having it in a locked car on campus and state government parking lots, would allow carry in ticketed places unless explicitly prohibited, would allow in restaurants that serve alcohol, and would also:

"let authorities charge any adult who permits a child under 12 to use a gun without supervision. The current law largely applies to parents and guardians.

make clear local governments can regulate the possession of concealed handguns at public athletic fields, pools and gyms but not on greenways and walking paths.

require court clerks to enter quickly into a national criminal background databases whether a criminal suspect or someone else has been committed to a mental health facility, found not guilty by reason of insanity or determined to be mentally incompetent."

i wish it went further to allow concealed carry on campus, but overall i think its a pretty good bill

4/25/2013 11:19:44 AM

^yeh; I also think it should dump the parks ban, but oh well.


also...

even the ACLU says no to registration.

4/25/2013 1:05:00 PM

Its not a ban necessarily, its making it clear that its up to the municipalities who own those. Its only banned there if they ban it.

and they make it clear that its allowed on trails and greenways, which is really awesome

edit: aclu isn't against registration because of the reasons being listed here, they just point out that there needs to be guidelines about how that information is managed and when its destroyed.

[Edited on April 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2013 1:09:59 PM

Quote :

"I understand the idea is compromise, but the problem is when one side knows you'll always compromise, they can keep pushing."

FuhCtious

And yet, you don't understand why gun rights supporters fear a slippery slope and giving in to demands for more gun control?

4/25/2013 9:58:59 PM

Well if one sides refuses to budge, how will you ever change?

4/25/2013 10:19:41 PM

Quote :

"even the ACLU says no to registration."

What do you mean "even the ACLU"?

4/25/2013 11:15:24 PM

Standing up for civil liberties is wrong... except for when that civil liberty is the right to sell guns to criminals.

4/25/2013 11:27:49 PM

there's been enough "compromise" in the past.

4/26/2013 10:46:26 AM

uh, what? gun control has been getting reduced over the past couple decades.

4/26/2013 10:51:46 AM

^6

Actually, that is the exact point. George Bush developed a tactic with his party that has been very successful and employed routinely since he was in office. It was for everyone to get on the same page (at the time, it was his page, but the author of the party plan has changed over time) and then no one was allowed to stray from the message, or they were cut off at the knees by their own people.

It's why the right has been very effective at getting what they want, without ever compromising. The left, on the other hand, ends up debating at length, and often members of their own side will hold up debate or change the message, and the end result is that bills get watered down or killed.

This most recent gun legislation is a prime example of the compromise distinction. The right holds firm to their ground, that nothing will get passed, and over weeks and months, the left gives and gives until there is nothing left, and the little that there is dies a whimpering death in Congress.

You know who has been compromising? Gun control advocates! Frankly, you guys are getting worse! The NRA used to advocate for universal background checks - now they are against them. 15 years ago Congress managed to pass an assault weapons ban - now they won't even bring that up for debate.

More importantly, that has nothing to do with slippery slope. It's saying draw a line in the sand about what is an appropriate method to protect gun rights and prevent gun violence, and hold the line. You know who's really the slippery slope people, are the gun advocates. They are the ones who realized that what they should do is move as far right as possible, even beyond rationale and logic, and then when the left holds their position, they have to come further to compromise.

Seriously, when your only argument against a registry is that it will allow big brother to know what's going on in your life and he will come take your guns, you're not arguing reality, you're arguing fantasy. Because there is one very simple point - if the government ever did authorize a "taking of your guns," they'd just fucking do it. They would send their Nazi jackbooted thugs to kick in your door, ransack your homes, and take your shit. The notion that the government is incapable of finding out who has guns? You honestly think they couldn't drop a little data mining software and find out who's gone to gun ranges, bought ammo from Wal-Mart, has membership in the NRA, etc., if they really decided one day to come get your shit? It's like the lame arguments about resistance from tyranny - if the government and the army came knocking one day, your pea shooters won't help. But it's never going to happen.

(And I only break the argument down into left vs. right because it tends to fall along party lines, although that is by no means an absolute.)

[Edited on April 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM. Reason : dv]

4/26/2013 11:05:19 AM

banning scary looking firearms is a good compromise!

actually, the new leftist mantra is weapon of war!!!!!!!. let's fearmonger some more!


BAN THESE EVIL WEAPONS OF WAR!!!



[Edited on April 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/26/2013 11:38:54 AM

the slippery slope is, and has been, steeply in the other direction. your scary looking guns are safer now than they have been at any other time in modern history.

4/26/2013 11:56:14 AM

^^WTF??? So you make up a position that I haven't taken, and argue against that? No one has said take guns away. Why do you keep acting like that's what we're saying? Maybe it's because it's harder to construct logical responses to the proposal I did make, or either you just didn't go back a page or so to read it.

4/26/2013 1:19:21 PM

In many of the proposed bills, they are banning weapons. When legislation gets passed that says sell/get rid of your stuff or you are a felon, that is the same thing as confiscation.

4/26/2013 1:47:29 PM

I wasn't aware of those bills, can you direct me to them?

(and i just read something about since the newtown shooting, 6 gun control law bills have passed, while 17 gun rights laws have passed. or something like that)

4/26/2013 1:50:58 PM

Quote :

"What do you mean "even the ACLU"?"

Probably the fact that the ACLU views the 2nd amendment " protects a collective right rather than an individual right." (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment, no word on why "the people" of the 2nd amendment are different from "the people" of the first, but that's neither here nor there)

It's not unreasonable to think that since the ACLU views the 2nd amendment as a collective right, that individual privacy with regards to that right would not be high on the ACLU's list either.

Quote :

" No one has said take guns away. Why do you keep acting like that's what we're saying? Maybe it's because it's harder to construct logical responses to the proposal I did make, or either you just didn't go back a page or so to read it."

No, it's because gun control can not work without gun confiscation or banning, and because the same people who are pushing and sponsoring gun control bills have repeatedly stated their ultimate aim is total bans. It's because when guns have been registered in the past, those registries have subsequently been used to confiscate arms. And it's because for all the talk about how our current controls aren't enough, the fact of the matter is, we don't enforce our current controls properly. In 2010, ~4,500 NICS denials were referred from the FBI to the ATF for investigation. Of those ~4,500 NICS denials, only 1,923 were investigated for unlawful possession of a firearm. Of those, only 62 were ever referred to prosecution, even though firearms were retrieved in over 1,000 cases. And of those referred to prosecution, only 13 were found guilty. Read that again, the NICS background check denied 4,500 people who were subsequently referred to the ATF for investigation, and of that number only 13 were convicted of a crime. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf) How in the world can we even begin to think that our current laws aren't sufficient when we don't enforce them?

As for going back pages, why don't you take a read through the past 50 or so pages because these and other arguments have already been had out in great detail.

Finally, if this:

Quote :

"the slippery slope is, and has been, steeply in the other direction. your scary looking guns are safer now than they have been at any other time in modern history."

Is true, then clearly we don't need more gun control, because at the same time this has been happening, violent crime of all types (including murder by guns) have been steadily decreasing, to levels not seen since the 60's. (http://leftcall.com/4557/u-s-crime-rates-1960-2010-the-facts-might-surprise-you/)

4/26/2013 1:52:19 PM

just buy guns with wood on them and they dont care

4/26/2013 2:16:26 PM

Quote :

"Is true, then clearly we don't need more gun control, because at the same time this has been happening, violent crime of all types (including murder by guns) have been steadily decreasing, to levels not seen since the 60's. (http://leftcall.com/4557/u-s-crime-rates-1960-2010-the-facts-might-surprise-you/)"

Economic development in urban areas has reversed the suburban flight.

It's an absurd leap of faith to attribute that to any lessening of gun laws.

4/26/2013 2:30:25 PM

^ I'm not attributing the decrease in crime to lessening of gun laws. I'm pointing out that the decrease in gun laws has not increased crime (of any type, including gun related crime), meaning either:

a) The strictness of gun control (+/- a few point from our current position) has no effect on crime

or

b) The effect that gun control does have on crime is so massively outdone by the effect that other activities (like economically developing urban areas) has on crime, that even as gun control has loosened, our crime rate continues to fall.

Therefore, our money would be better spent not on more gun control, but more economic development.

[Edited on April 26, 2013 at 3:01 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/26/2013 2:54:51 PM

The three day series on The Daily Show about how Australia implemented gun control was excellent. While I don't necessarily agree with a ban on all semi-automatic long guns, their political mentality and the process by which it was enacted is so goddamn alien compared to the political process we have here. Personal sacrifice for the greater good and common sense are actual things that people subscribe to. The closest thing we get to that here is a dude resigning because he accidently posted a picture of his dick on twitter.

4/26/2013 2:55:17 PM

we should all give up our right to not be searched for the greater good.

4/26/2013 2:58:18 PM

i love it when people compare us to parliamentary states and somehow find that to be clever/relevant.

4/26/2013 4:31:32 PM

well he did neither, he said it was "goddamn alien"

4/26/2013 4:43:32 PM

just sayin

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

4/26/2013 9:15:01 PM

^ what's the point? No one has been talking about doing away with concealed carry, or stopping responsible people from legally owning weapons.

That man's a hero, and those people are lucky he stopped that stabbing spree.

4/26/2013 10:15:04 PM

im just saying that this wont be on the front page of any media news outlet, and it should




[Edited on April 26, 2013 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2013 10:55:34 PM

It won't be on the front page, because it happened more than a year ago.

But I can't see any issues with putting every story where guns save a life, as long as we put every store where guns take a life...

4/26/2013 11:01:28 PM

i love it when people say that something won't make the news because of some kind if implied agenda


... and then post a link to a news site

4/26/2013 11:18:01 PM

honestly didnt see that it was 2012 when i came across it. I LOSE

4/27/2013 10:18:33 AM

What do you expect to happen, you want it to be all over national and local tv and newspapers? We have to start treating these incidents like 9/11 or hurricane Sandy?

4/27/2013 12:30:45 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

"A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said. Little Caroline Starks died Tuesday in Burkesville, in southern Kentucky, according to Cumberland County Coroner Gary White. "The little Crickett rifle is a single-shot rifle and it has a child safety," White said of the weapon. "It's just a tragic situation.""

5/1/2013 10:47:48 AM

Why the fuck would you buy a five-year old a gun as a present.

Has not much to do with gun control but more to do with retarded parenting.

5/1/2013 10:49:33 AM

Adam Lanza also had a retarded parent.

5/1/2013 10:53:22 AM

Anyone who's been paying attention to politics since Obama was elected shouldn't be surprised by this, but the real reason why background checks didn't pass came out today,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/pat-toomey-background-checks_n_3192690.html?1367420344

Quote :

"Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president." Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure. "In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa."

Hey republicans, stop voting children into office, k?

5/1/2013 2:02:24 PM

Oh please. Your president throws regular tantrums.

5/1/2013 2:24:11 PM

I bought my 9-year-old a gun. A Daisy 499 BB gun. Not a fucking 22 rifle though.

5/1/2013 3:09:59 PM

A 9 year old is a lot different from a 5 year old too.

5/1/2013 3:18:30 PM

in NC the parents could be charged and, if the latest proposed bill passes, so could any adult.

5/1/2013 3:34:43 PM

^^Yea I know. My 6 year old finally shot a BB gun last weekend. At a BB gun range run by myself and an NRA certified range instructor during a Cub Scout camp. My kids will know how to shoot and have a proper respect for weapons. But I can't fathom giving a kid a year younger than my youngest son a .22 and having it somewhere he could easily access it and the ammo to load it. That boggles my mind.

[Edited on May 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2013 3:47:25 PM

^^as they should.

what idiot gives a child a loaded firearm (except for being on the range, etc.)?

what idiot leaves a child with an unsecured firearm?

ya can't fix stupid.

5/1/2013 4:05:15 PM

I have no issue with buying a 5 year old a gun, I shot a .22 when I was younger than that under strict supervision from my Dad of course. And while I don't have a problem with buying a gun for a kid that age I absolutely have a problem with giving that kid access to said gun anytime other than at a shooting range (or piece of land for shooting) with strict supervision.

Those parents are completely to blame and should be punished accordingly.

5/1/2013 4:17:25 PM

I have let my oldest shoot a .22 while he was under supervision. And when he gets older he will learn more about shooting. And while I am somewhat appalled at giving a kid a rifle at 5, like you said, I am more appalled that the mother left him home with no adult present but access to a firearm that he could use and the ammunition to actually use it.

5/1/2013 5:48:21 PM

Quote :

"Those parents are completely to blame and should be punished accordingly."

Punished how?

A dead daughter and a son scarred for life was apparently not enough of a concern for them to be more careful about weapons.

Conservatives have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot to satisfy the personal feeling of sticking it to liberals: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-conservatives-dont-like-conserving/

I wouldn't be surprised if this feeling extended to being lax with their guns too.

5/2/2013 1:08:33 AM

Quote :

"Punished how?"

making them go around giving lectures on firearms safety and storage would be a good start

5/2/2013 7:12:43 AM

They'll probably never own a gun again after that, not sure how credible a source on how to store a gun they would be.

5/2/2013 7:53:02 AM

recovering addicts go to schools and tell kids drugs are bad m'kay. what's the difference?

5/2/2013 9:00:40 AM

Sounds like a good plan to me.

5/2/2013 12:18:57 PM