Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do • Hacker News Board

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#241

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

samdoidge wrote: post #42

pjc50 wrote: post #12

Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first and last "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects…

> (about one per year in a country of 60m) This source shows the lowest number of gun deaths a year from 1996 as 130. Actual murders will be lower than this figure, but do you have a source? http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/192/total_num...

Sorry, that was simply an error. I think I meant to attach that bracket to the number of shootings by police, or possibly of police.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt... p11 puts gun deaths of police officers at <1 per year.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#242

Post by LyndsySimon » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #233

LyndsySimon wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the criminals in the UK that do not obtain any firearm? There are likely a greater portion of unarmed criminals in the UK. Since their potential victims are also unarmed, that means that are at the mercy of physically dominating criminals. I fail to see how this is an improvement. > Someone carrying a cheap pistol is still more heavily armed than someone carrying brass knuckles. Practically speaking, a p…

A statement like I don't believe that US criminals are more heavily-armed than those in other countries. sure sounds like a statement that is inclusive of rates to me. Say 1 guy uses a legitimate high caliber machine gun to commit some crime, is that the only crime that gets used when describing how criminals are armed in that country?

OK, let me rephrase then - "I believe that the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions where firearms are heavily restricted is almost certainly much greater than the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions with comparatively permissive firearms laws"

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#243

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

psychometry wrote: post #210

hnal943 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...because the criminals are. And therein lies to fatal flaw of gun control - only people who are law abiding would comply with the new laws.

Sigh...good guys with guns, again? Right. Your good guy with a gun is only that up until the moment he decides to go on a mass shooting spree. Is he still a good guy with a gun then?

That's why we should stop thinking that government employees are always good guys too. I've been through more background checks than most cops, and through about as much training as most young cops - but that doesn't make a difference in most gun control schemes that get discussed in the US.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#244

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

geggam wrote: post #65

Already__Taken wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagining the mental gymnastics you went through to bring this up was the best laugh I've had all day. Trying to say owning a handgun would prevent a clandestine branch of a first world governments assassination.

in simpleton speak.. UK killed a citizen with a drone.... without trial... this means they will use a tool to kill citizens without trial... as have many many other govts in history.... simple economics of scale... your govt cannot afford to drone kill everyone and everyone can afford a rifle / pistol... it will be bloody but an armed citizenry will always win... assuming they care enough to fight

it will be bloody but an armed citizenry will always win...

Who won in Northern Ireland?

One of the things that annoys me about this stupid phoney insurgency that's always brought up as a pro-gun argument is that we actually had one in the UK and it was awful.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#245

Post by Nadya » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

optimuspaul wrote: post #176

TallGuyShort wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> police are not routinely armed I'm a gun owner and this is the key point for me. No politician is in a position to tell me I don't need my semi-automatic pistol if every day I see a patrol car go by my house with 2 fully automatic AR-15s locked between the front seats and my local police department owns an armoured vehicle. If you really think you have a plan for getting rid of guns for bad guys as well as me, pro…

Huh, what's wrong with me then. I absolutely do not need a gun, ever. Nobody needs a gun. If you think you need a gun then you have serious problems. Let's talk about basic human needs. Food, water, Air, and to a lesser extent clothing and shelter. You don't need a gun for any of those things. Sure a gun can help with food, but guess what, you don't even need to eat meat, there are so many other sources of food. So n…

Sometimes serious problems are external.

For example, 1911 Turkey, 1929 Soviet Russia, 1938 Germany, 1964 Guatemala, and 1970 Uganda.

I'm sure plenty of citizens would have preferred to have had a gun in the years shortly after the bans.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#246

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

LyndsySimon wrote: post #242

maxerickson wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A statement like I don't believe that US criminals are more heavily-armed than those in other countries. sure sounds like a statement that is inclusive of rates to me. Say 1 guy uses a legitimate high caliber machine gun to commit some crime, is that the only crime that gets used when describing how criminals are armed in that country?

OK, let me rephrase then - "I believe that the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions where firearms are heavily restricted is almost certainly much greater than the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions with comparatively permissive firearms laws"

Cool beans, my mission is accomplished. This is a much softer claim than the one in your comment above.

edit: I changed 'weaker' to 'softer', because it's a stronger claim, it's likely to stand up to scrutiny, it's almost a banality.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#247

Post by chishaku » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #103

pjc50 wrote: post #12

Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first and last "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects…

>> police are not routinely armed I'm a gun owner and this is the key point for me. No politician is in a position to tell me I don't need my semi-automatic pistol if every day I see a patrol car go by my house with 2 fully automatic AR-15s locked between the front seats and my local police department owns an armoured vehicle. If you really think you have a plan for getting rid of guns for bad guys as well as me, pro…

> Demilitarize the police at the same time.

Unfortunately, we're going in the opposite direction.

--

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...

SWAT teams were deployed about 3,000 times in 1980 but are now used around 50,000 times a year.

New Haven, Connecticut sent a SWAT team to a bar suspected of serving under-age drinkers. That same year heavily-armed police raided barber shops around Orlando, Florida; they said they were hunting for guns and drugs but ended up arresting 34 people for “barbering without a licence”. Maricopa County, Arizona sent a SWAT team into the living room of Jesus Llovera, who was suspected of organising cockfights. Police rolled a tank into Mr Llovera’s yard and killed more than 100 of his birds, as well as his dog.

Federal cash -- first to wage war on drugs, then on terror -- has paid for much of the heavy weaponry used by SWAT teams. Between 2002 and 2011 the Department of Homeland Security disbursed $35 billion in grants to state and local police.

...it is hard to see why Fargo, North Dakota—a city that averages fewer than two murders a year—needs an armoured personnel-carrier with a rotating turret. Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier known as a BearCat. The local police chief said it would be used to patrol Keene’s “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations”.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#248

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #131

geggam wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK govt does kill its citizens though. Without trial. The restrictions of guns by the government ensures you have no defense from the one entity that has killed more people than anything. Their own govt. http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2015/09/08/when-does-t...

So, how does it turn out for people who shoot at the police? I'm sorry but you are living in libertarian cowboy fantasy.

Indeed. Somehow I don't think the commentator is a supporter of the Black Panthers, who I think were the last US political group trying to prevent their members being killed by "the government".

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#249

Post by AI_Overlord » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:13 PM UTC

Loque wrote: post #157

AI_Overlord wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, when the gov goes crazy it is usually against some group of people. If you are not part of that group then you may actually believe the gov is quite sane. Also, all it takes is some really bad times for nice people to elect a tyrant. We've seen it before many times in history. Trump phenomenon fueled on xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism, which is scary for minorities, is an example of a gov that…

I would argue that if Trump gets voted in, it is the people who are crazy. I do see your point though - I guess everything feels very nice and pedestrian here... nothing owning guns would solve anyway. I would also argue that all those xenophobic trump fans can legally own guns... After the last elections in the UK, I don't really trust the "general public" =D

The US founders also did not trust the general population which is why the electoral college was used to elect the president. Being young I could not understand why when I first read about it. I understand now why, the masses can be quite stupid as demonstrated many times by history.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#250

Post by rsync » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 3:13 PM UTC

adwf wrote: post #189

kamjam wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reference to the Australia stats reminds me of the Jim Jefferies sketch on Gun Control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Yeah that's an excellent sketch. I think he really does touch on an important point, the only good reason to have guns is because they're fun. Self defense is nonsense and protection from government is even more nonsense nowadays. I'm actually fairly pro-gun (for the UK at least), I think we're quite restrictive on the type of guns allowed (eg. larger calibre rifles would be fun down a range). But at the same time I'…

"Yeah that's an excellent sketch. I think he really does touch on an important point, the only good reason to have guns is because they're fun. Self defense is nonsense and protection from government is even more nonsense nowadays."

You're completely overlooking (dismissing ?) animal husbandry and predator control for livestock, etc.

Depending on your location, a rifle (or three) is absolutely necessary to protect animals.

On our ranch, we have a herd of sheep that we need to protect from heavy fox and coyote and bobcat predation. We also have to trap raccoons that go after our flock of chickens, so we have a .22 to put them down (no reason to wake up the whole valley with a larger caliber just to kill todays raccoon).

Remember that next time you're at the farm to table restaurant eating the local lamb or the free range chicken - "your farmer"[1] uses firearms and considers them essential tools.

[1] Popular in the US is a bumper sticker "Know your Farmer, Know your Food" ... or ... "I know my farmer"