Another US shooting..

[Al Swearegen]

I did not embarrass myself at all with that. If someone was foolish enough to try to extrapolate what I was not saying from what I was saying then not only is there no embarrassment nor need to counter a position I never made in the first place but they have only their own foolishness and any embarrassment THEY feel?

But I will not judge you unfairly just yet. I have no idea if this is what you are trying to do. (As unwise as it may be in inviting me out of just one thread that I have contained nastier disagreements with you). So please explain Odeon, nicely

No one extrapolated anything.   Your post is below.  Why don't you explain what your point was if we all got it so very wrong.  It's meaning looks clear to me.

To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

Bad people will do bad things and will not be put off by making something illegal.
So IF criminals and mentally ill people are NOT allowed to have access to weapons BUT get access to them anyhow despite the rules ALREADY in place. Then the gun control rules will likely make not the slightest bit of difference.
It will NEVER be the case that UK will be 100% protected from its citizens being bombed by a bad or crazy person AND likewise the US is not likely to ever be free from the danger that someone may do another mass shooting.

BUT if we accept all the above, UK has shown that it is prepared to look outside the box in a number of preventative measures and re-educating people as to possible dangers.

US should look at enforcing existing rules better so people do not get missed or fall through cracks and whatever and likewise better educational efforts about gun risks to gun owners

LOL What a clown!
....and removing guns or preventing them from getting into the hands of the criminal and the mentally ill.
Will it stop it entirely? Nope. Will it make a real difference? Yup.


BIG question.....is it viable and practical? YES. (Hint: suggestions for gun control are not viable or practical because they cannot get passed in Congress and this is evidenced again and again. Democrats REALLY want them passed but they cannot get passed. So suggesting them as a viable and/or practical suggestion would be stupid).

[Al Swearegen]

So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other. 

Could you please explain why they don't count?

 

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other gangs that we have.

They skew the results.

I know precisely what you mean but I want you to verbalise it.

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other people people with dark skin?

Is that what you meant?  It only counts as human/murder if it's white folk?  Is that the point you're dancing around?

He has not said anything of the sort. He was talking as far as I saw about institutionlised gang culture who make up a small portion of the overall population but are such a large portion of the overall homicide/gun violence problem. If he was talking about the gangs that were most violent in Prison culture, he may have mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood as well. If he was talking about gangs that were responsible for skewing the number in drug running and the threat they posed with large scale distribution and standover tactics and such maybe he would talk about various Bikie Gangs or even the various Mafia groups including Italian and Russia Mafia groups and Triads and Tongs.

As it is he seemed to identify the gangs most involved in gun violence and I think he picked it rather well. NONE of this makes ANY point about race......AT ALL.

He did not make ANY racist point NOT even subtlety. Someone DID though. That was YOU. Again. Why is that?

Al.  I was trying to find some sort of meaning in the post.  Otherwise if it is taken at face value it means that the action of criminals tends to skew the crime figures.  We should only include crimes done by non-criminals?  Yep.  That sure makes sense.

We have gangs.  Our gangs don't have unfettered access to guns.  Apart from that I think you'll find countries around the world are quite similar.

And also we tend to include crimes that are committed by criminals in crime statistics because we feel they may be an important part of, you know, factual fucking data.

Anything else we should leave out of things to make the numbers suit your argument?

Which argument of mine have I produce numbers that I am skewing and how? Are you that far removed from critical analysing that you forgot who was making that argument?
I am making the argument that as far as I saw the ONLY mention of race was from you. You alone. I further stated why including these gangs irrespective of the ethnic or racial composition of the gang members.
But you obviously think he is wrong and that these gangs collectively DO NOT contribute greatly to the homicide rate and that his reason for including these gangs is racial in nature. 
Perfect. Now show me the gangs that are predominantly racially white that contribute as much in gun violence and then Scrap will need to dismiss or correct his previous comments.

You can't can you? Why not? Is it because he was pretty right in what he said and that for whatever socio-economic and/or cultural reasons these gangs both remain mainly composed of certain non-white membership and proliferate and become institionalised to be violent and ready and willing to murder by gun? If so, then my question remains, as he said NOTHING about race and you did, why did you?

[odeon]

To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

+

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Al.  I was trying to find some sort of meaning in the post.  Otherwise if it is taken at face value it means that the action of criminals tends to skew the crime figures.  We should only include crimes done by non-criminals?  Yep.  That sure makes sense.

Are you really this stupid or are you being obtuse on purpose? Do you not understand the difference between individual criminals and ORGANIZED crime??

We have gangs.  Our gangs don't have unfettered access to guns.

You live on a fucking island with borders that are far easier to control. I've already made this argument and you've ignored it because you don't have an answer to it.   

Apart from that I think you'll find countries around the world are quite similar.

Actually, no. There are several countries with higher firearm homicide rates than the US.

And also we tend to include crimes that are committed by criminals in crime statistics because we feel they may be an important part of, you know, factual fucking data.

Anything else we should leave out of things to make the numbers suit your argument?

WOW!! this is a great example of how absolutely low resolution your thinking is.

All crime is the same to you, regardless of the root causes behind the crime because ultimately it's the guns that are responsible for the crime, right??   

[Yuri Bezmenov]

(And of course, it was just a coincidence that only minority groups were named.)

No, it wasn't a coincidence, they are responsible for the majority of gun violence in the US. There are white gangs, they're just not fighting over turf like minority gangs are.

You really are too ignorant and obtuse for this discussion, I've refuted every point you've made and yet you continue to flap your gums...

[odeon]

It's funny. You haven't actually refuted anything, only repeated claims shown to be false. You're really, really bad at this.

[Lestat]

If wit were shit, for you to speak that claim in ANY context, odious, you'd be the wisest man on this planet, or any other for that matter.

If you get any more full of yourself, you'd be in danger of ripping at the seams and spraying the surrounding area with faecal matter for the closest few hundred miles of so.  You aren't just a cretin, you are an embarrassment.

[odeon]

Blah blubber blah blah...

This is why you need to stay off the drugs, kids.

[FourAceDeal]

So are the gangs mentally ill?  Or are they the ones with bombs?

Was Stephen Paddock in the Crips or the Bloods? 

[Al Swearegen]

So are the gangs mentally ill?  Or are they the ones with bombs?

Was Stephen Paddock in the Crips or the Bloods?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock

"During his last months, he reportedly smelled of alcohol from early morning,[31][45] and was despondent according to others.[31] Paddock was reported to have filled prescriptions for the anti-anxiety drug Valium (brand name of diazepam), in 2013,[30] 2016, as well as, the highest dose of 50 tablets 10-milligrams each in late June 2017.[46] The chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center said the effects of the drug can be magnified by alcohol,[46] as confirmed by Dr. Michael First, a clinical psychiatry professor at Columbia University.[46][47][48][49]"

Was he mentally ill or a criminal? Maybe he was both? At the very least, he seems to have been suffering mental illness? Why do you imagine that Stephen Paddock may have been in the Crips or the Bloods (and no, I never made any inference to him being so nor did ANYTHING I said give rise to that possibility)

Are gangs criminal or mentally ill? Criminal certainly and some members will certainly be mentally ill.

Have members of gangs ever used bombs? Sure have. Will in future too.

Addressing both criminals and people who are mentally ill will reduce the incidences of violent crime including gun violence.

[FourAceDeal]

....And you don't think the proliferation of guns caused by lack of controls has fuelled the increasing cycle of violent gang crime at all?  You think the subjects are so far divorced from each other that gang crime should not even be part of gun crime statistics, or part of the gun crime debate?

[Al Swearegen]

....And you don't think the proliferation of guns caused by lack of controls has fuelled the increasing cycle of violent gang crime at all?  You think the subjects are so far divorced from each other that gang crime should not even be part of gun crime statistics, or part of the gun crime debate?

You will, of course, quote where I made ANY mention that I believe that gang crime should not be part of gun crime statistics or gun crime debate, right? No? Wrong person? LOL

You have not obviously been reading much of what you are commenting on me with. If you had you would not have made this silly mistake nor would you be trying to draw me into defending lack of controls. I think that the biggest controlling factors that they can enforce are the ones on the books that they are not enforcing. In fact, some of the first arguments around this were that most of the gun control laws would make no difference and that too often the problem is not in the fact that the laws are bad but that they are not being enforced. There is always a glitch or an Administrative error or other regulatory non-compliance. So I believe in these controls. If you have points and checks in place and then don't use them, they are redundant.

I have also mentioned that there should be better policing of the criminal element and making sure they don't have nor can as easily get guns and furthermore that the mentally ill are not to have guns either on diagnosis or after.

No controls? I have no idea who you are trying to argue against but it clearly is not me with anything you have said. Any other strawmen you have laying around?

[FourAceDeal]

....And you don't think the proliferation of guns caused by lack of controls has fuelled the increasing cycle of violent gang crime at all?  You think the subjects are so far divorced from each other that gang crime should not even be part of gun crime statistics, or part of the gun crime debate?

You will, of course, quote where I made ANY mention that I believe that gang crime should not be part of gun crime statistics or gun crime debate, right? No? Wrong person? LOL

You have not obviously been reading much of what you are commenting on me with. If you had you would not have made this silly mistake nor would you be trying to draw me into defending lack of controls. I think that the biggest controlling factors that they can enforce are the ones on the books that they are not enforcing. In fact, some of the first arguments around this were that most of the gun control laws would make no difference and that too often the problem is not in the fact that the laws are bad but that they are not being enforced. There is always a glitch or an Administrative error or other regulatory non-compliance. So I believe in these controls. If you have points and checks in place and then don't use them, they are redundant.

I have also mentioned that there should be better policing of the criminal element and making sure they don't have nor can as easily get guns and furthermore that the mentally ill are not to have guns either on diagnosis or after.

No controls? I have no idea who you are trying to argue against but it clearly is not me with anything you have said. Any other strawmen you have laying around?

I only tend to read the first two sentences of your posts because then I realise who posted it and save my time and energy.  It's not like your rambling posts add anything to the sum total of mankind's knowledge.

But along the way you have made the point that gun controls won't work and that mental health is a cause of gun crime, despite all knowledge, research and statistics proving otherwise.

I have asked you many times to post the research or proof or WHO or UN statistics that support your views, but what follows is you changing thew subject or just re-framing the argument.

So put up or shut the fuck up.

Prove that Mental Health is linked to gun violence.

[Lestat]

Here's another perspective: look at it the other way round, psychopaths might not necessarily be more likely to use guns to conduct mass killings than other tools for the task.

But, if you've just got so offended by the price of cinema popcorn that you shot up the audience with an uzi after watching the movie, chances are your a fucking nutter.

[FourAceDeal]

Here's another perspective: look at it the other way round, psychopaths might not necessarily be more likely to use guns to conduct mass killings than other tools for the task.

But, if you've just got so offended by the price of cinema popcorn that you shot up the audience with an uzi after watching the movie, chances are your a fucking nutter.

We're on different sides of the fence on this debate, but this has got my vote for truth of the day.  I can't argue with this.

£4.80 for a large tub of salted is enough to tip anyone over the edge.