Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[deep9er]

FIFY.

just stop for a minute and use your common sense, use your logic. this instead of placing all your sensibilities on two articles. either that or you just want to hear yourself argue.

if you don't believe in gun control, then what are you arguing for.......everyone be armed to deter crimes? everyone carry a gun anywhere they go, shopping, restaurant, beach, etc.?

 

[NinerSickness]

but your using the general "gun crime" stat, without knowing other factors? for example, where did these crimes occur? what if 95% of these gun crimes are robbery of drug stores, bank robbers, drug deals gone bad, etc.? if the majority of these 'gun crimes' were not at homes, then the premise of protecting "you and yours", wouldn't apply.

These factors are constant between 1997 and 1998, so they don't matter. The only difference between those years was the gun ban.

are these stats still current today, or has gun crimes been reduced over time?

What do you mean by current today? I know England holds the top spot right now for gun crime. But like I said before, you see an immediate spike in crime anywhere there's a gun ban. And it's not just gun crime. It's also home invasions, r*pe, theft, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just yell "police" and they would instantly appear? In some places, they won't even come file a report for a lot of crimes. In fact, Oakland PD won't even respond at all to any crime unless it's an emergency call.

If you want to focus on the rare exceptions, I don't know what to say. But we all know that the problem 99% of the time, is single, unemployed males under the age of 25. If you anti-gun people would leave the rest of society alone, I would happily concede limiting the aforementioned males under the age of 25. Or 27 or so. Anyone that says a woman shouldn't be able to carry a gun is pretty much an asshole IMO. I know that's a harsh stance, but EVERYONE knows women are not the problem.

 

[NinerSickness]

just stop for a minute and use your common sense, use your logic.

That's exactly what I used to do when I held your position on guns. But my logic proved to be wrong because the actual results didn't back up my prediction. I was wrong, and I admitted that I was wrong when I saw the stats.

if you don't believe in gun control, then what are you arguing for.......everyone be armed to deter crimes? everyone carry a gun anywhere they go, shopping, restaurant, beach, etc.?

I'm "waiting" for things that clearly are not the problem to be left alone. For example:

*Women are not the problem; they should all be able to carry guns to protect themselves.
*Older men (26+), fully employed men, and married men are not the problem. They should be able to carry guns.
*People with conceal-carry permits are not the problem because approximately none out of none gun crimes are committed by people with conceal-carry permits.

And I don't want "everyone" to carry guns around. Only people who have a permit. But I also think it's incredibly stupid to forbid women and older men to get those permits. If I were a woman or elderly man living in Oakland, Stockton, Sacramento and so on I would be an easy target and have no way to defend myself without a gun. How many accidental child shootings by people with legally-owned guns were there last year? Do you actually know? I happen to think r*pe, theft, burglary, home invasion, assault and armed robbery are much bigger and more realistic problems that need addressing.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Kind of like nobody owns guns in England? Because they're illegal, is it safe to assume nobody owns guns there?

Oh wait, they have the highest gun crime of any 1st-world nation on planet earth. So clearly making guns illegal doesn't mean that nobody will own guns. That just means only law-abiding people won't have guns.

Again, Sick, you've got to provide some sort of link to support this claim. I would wager very heavily that this statement is not only wrong, but that it is VERY wrong.

A few sources from a relatively quick google search that dispute your claim:

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com

The chart in the article doesn't seem to include the UK (though I might be missing it), but that information can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdExSbktqRWpLMjNUMkFGVk5VODRyTnc#gid=0

Based on these numbers, which I believe are from 2009, England and Wales had 41 firearm homicides, a rate of 0.07 per 100K citizens. By contrast, the US had 9,146 firearm homicides, or 2.97 per 100K citizens.

Here?s how U.S. gun violence compares with the rest of the world

Based on the map in this article, the US is in the 2-5 firearm homicides per 100K, England is in the 0.01-1 range (which comports with the other article).

U.S. Has More Guns ? And Gun Deaths ? Than Any Other Country, Study Finds - ABC News

This article includes all gun-related deaths, which presumably include accidents. The US comes in at 10 per 100K, the UK comes in far lower at 0.25 per 100K.

No. 12: The United States - In Photos: Death By Firearms Around The World - Forbes

Not as much in terms of comparative numbers here, but the US is on the list for highest rates of gun deaths, and the UK is not.

Even googling "england highest rate of gun crime" didn't turn up anything to support your claim.

 

[deep9er]

That's exactly what I used to do when I held your position on guns. But my logic proved to be wrong because the actual results didn't back up my prediction. I was wrong, and I admitted that I was wrong when I saw the stats.



I'm "waiting" for things that clearly are not the problem to be left alone. For example:

*Women are not the problem; they should all be able to carry guns to protect themselves.
*Older men (26+), fully employed men, and married men are not the problem. They should be able to carry guns. *People with conceal-carry permits are not the problem because approximately none out of none gun crimes are committed by people with conceal-carry permits.

And I don't want "everyone" to carry guns around. Only people who have a permit. But I also think it's incredibly stupid to forbid women and older men to get those permits. If I were a woman or elderly man living in Oakland, Stockton, Sacramento and so on I would be an easy target and have no way to defend myself without a gun. How many accidental child shootings by people with legally-owned guns were there last year? Do you actually know? I happen to think r*pe, theft, burglary, home invasion, assault and armed robbery are much bigger and more realistic problems that need addressing.

for me, it isn't about the good people themselves, its about how guns owned by good people get into the wrong hands. I've mentioned children, mentally unstable, and thieves who steal those same guns.

you think all these permit carrying women and men will secure their guns? people lose cell phones all the time, why wouldn't they lose their guns? you think all these woman and men can shoot straight, and not hurt people in the background like gang bangers?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I got those Australia stats from Australian Institute of Criminology.

The England stats I got from a British Newspaper I've never heard of called the daily mail. Obviously I don't read British publications. It cited 2,636 crimes involving guns in 1997 and 5,871 in 1998. Are those numbers not correct? If they're not correct, them please enlighten us on what the actual gun crime statistics were from those years.

Or, because we both know those numbers are accurate and you're not going to produce a "correct" number, you can keep insisting on ignoring the fact that gun crime goes up everywhere they limit legal gun ownership on the face of the planet.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. You don't know the numbers are accurate. By your own admission, you don't know anything about this newspaper.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

These factors are constant between 1997 and 1998, so they don't matter. The only difference between those years was the gun ban.



What do you mean by current today? I know England holds the top spot right now for gun crime. But like I said before, you see an immediate spike in crime anywhere there's a gun ban. And it's not just gun crime. It's also home invasions, r*pe, theft, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just yell "police" and they would instantly appear? In some places, they won't even come file a report for a lot of crimes. In fact, Oakland PD won't even respond at all to any crime unless it's an emergency call.

If you want to focus on the rare exceptions, I don't know what to say. But we all know that the problem 99% of the time, is single, unemployed males under the age of 25. If you anti-gun people would leave the rest of society alone, I would happily concede limiting the aforementioned males under the age of 25. Or 27 or so. Anyone that says a woman shouldn't be able to carry a gun is pretty much an asshole IMO. I know that's a harsh stance, but EVERYONE knows women are not the problem.

Patently false, and it really casts doubt on a lot of the claims you've made here.

And hey, if it was constitutional to do so, I'd be all for an outright, focused ban on young men. Unfortunately, it wouldn't stand up in court.

 

[NinerSickness]

you think all these permit carrying women and men will secure their guns? people lose cell phones all the time, why wouldn't they lose their guns? you think all these woman and men can shoot straight, and not hurt people in the background like gang bangers?

Yes they will secure their guns because they always do. The percentage of guns used in crimes that are people with conceal-carry permitted guns is so negligible you wouldn't even see it on the pie chart.

For every one permitted gun that gets into the wrong hands you have like a thousand illegally-obtained guns getting into the wrong hands.

This is kind of like the argument about how airport security in Israel profiles people. They are going addressing the people who are the ACTUAL problem rather than throwing all realism out the door. Just like I don't think elderly women form Wisconsin should be randomly selected for pat downs, I don't think women and men over the age of 25 should be forbidden from owning guns or having conceal-carry permits. Frisk the 23-year-old guy from Egypt or Yemen instead of the old lady, and stop restricting the people who almost never commit gun crimes.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That's exactly what I used to do when I held your position on guns. But my logic proved to be wrong because the actual results didn't back up my prediction. I was wrong, and I admitted that I was wrong when I saw the stats.



I'm "waiting" for things that clearly are not the problem to be left alone. For example:

*Women are not the problem; they should all be able to carry guns to protect themselves.
*Older men (26+), fully employed men, and married men are not the problem. They should be able to carry guns.
*People with conceal-carry permits are not the problem because approximately none out of none gun crimes are committed by people with conceal-carry permits.

And I don't want "everyone" to carry guns around. Only people who have a permit. But I also think it's incredibly stupid to forbid women and older men to get those permits. If I were a woman or elderly man living in Oakland, Stockton, Sacramento and so on I would be an easy target and have no way to defend myself without a gun. How many accidental child shootings by people with legally-owned guns were there last year? Do you actually know? I happen to think r*pe, theft, burglary, home invasion, assault and armed robbery are much bigger and more realistic problems that need addressing.

Do you?

More to the point, if we could eliminate deaths in exchange for an uptick in property crimes, I would definitely take that trade-off.

 

[NinerSickness]

Patently false, and it really casts doubt on a lot of the claims you've made here.

And hey, if it was constitutional to do so, I'd be all for an outright, focused ban on young men. Unfortunately, it wouldn't stand up in court.

Patently false? You don't think young, single, unemployed men are the problem with gun crimes? If not then who is the problem?

And I think specific exemptions from gun restrictions would hold up in court. The unemployed one wouldn't; the single one wouldn't; but I think the age & gender exemptions might. You can't rent a car unless you're 25. Not as convinced of the gender exemption, but it'd be worth a try.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Yes they will secure their guns because they always do. The percentage of guns used in crimes that are people with conceal-carry permitted guns is so negligible you wouldn't even see it on the pie chart.

For every one permitted gun that gets into the wrong hands you have like a thousand illegally-obtained guns getting into the wrong hands.

This is kind of like the argument about how airport security in Israel profiles people. They are going addressing the people who are the ACTUAL problem rather than throwing all realism out the door. Just like I don't think elderly women form Wisconsin should be randomly selected for pat downs, I don't think women and men over the age of 25 should be forbidden from owning guns or having conceal-carry permits. Frisk the 23-year-old guy from Egypt or Yemen instead of the old lady, and stop restricting the people who almost never commit gun crimes.

He's talking about legal guns being stolen out of homes, cars, etc. And let me tell you, that happens frequently. The vast majority of guns on the streets of the US came into the stream of commerce legally. At some point, many of them entered an illegal stream, but that's precisely what Deep is arguing: that legally owned guns can and do go missing. If we made it more difficult to obtain guns legally, it would also become much more difficult to obtain guns illegally, since most illegally obtained guns were obtained legally by someone at some time.

The last paragraph basically shits on the Constitution. But hey, that document apparently only applies when it's protecting the things you care about.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Patently false? You don't think young, single, unemployed men are the problem with gun crimes? If not then who is the problem?

And I think specific exemptions from gun restrictions would hold up in court. The unemployed one wouldn't; the single one wouldn't; but I think the age & gender exemptions might. You can't rent a car unless you're 25. Not as convinced of the gender exemption, but it'd be worth a try.

I'm talking about your repeated claims that the UK has more gun-related crimes than any other first world nation. See all the links I provided above.

 

[NinerSickness]

Do you?

No. I looked, but I couldn't find those statistics. But I'm not the one who brought that up.

I'd be interested to see how many children died from accidental gun fire by a legally-owned gun last year. If anyone knows please do share.

 

[NinerSickness]

He's talking about legal guns being stolen out of homes, cars, etc. And let me tell you, that happens frequently. The vast majority of guns on the streets of the US came into the stream of commerce legally.

So you're saying these people who are willing to break into people's homes and steal their stuff would not get guns in... say... England where guns are banned?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

So you're saying these people who are willing to break into people's homes and steal their stuff would not get guns in... say... England where guns are banned?

I'm saying they would have a much harder time finding guns because there are far fewer guns in England.

 

[NinerSickness]

The last paragraph basically shits on the Constitution. But hey, that document apparently only applies when it's protecting the things you care about.

Searching people at airports at all or targeting them based on their country of origin? Or both?

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm saying they would have a much harder time finding guns because there are far fewer guns in England.

Did people have a hard time finding booze during the prohibition years?

Do people have a hard time finding crack & heroin?

And you never answered who you think the problem is when it comes to gun crime. You don't think it's single men under the age of 25. Who's the problem?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Searching people at airports at all or targeting them based on their country of origin? Or both?

Racial, gender, religious, etc. profiling. Treating someone differently at the airport because they appear Arab, or pat-searching young black men on NY city streets, for example, is not legal in this country.

 

[NinerSickness]

Racial, gender, religious, etc. profiling. Treating someone differently at the airport because they appear Arab, or pat-searching young black men on NY city streets, for example, is not legal in this country.

Are airports legally considered government entities? I know the TSA is, but they didn't exist like 15 years ago.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Did people have a hard time finding booze during the prohibition years?

Do people have a hard time finding crack & heroin?

And you never answered who you think the problem is when it comes to gun crime. You don't think it's single men under the age of 25. Who's the problem?

Was it relatively harder to find booze during prohibition? Absolutely. Is crack and heroin less widespread than it would be were it not illegal? Almost certainly. And those are substances that can be made at home, or can be easily hidden and transported. It is much harder to smuggle a gun into the country than it is to smuggle in a couple ounces of drugs. Obviously we could expect the black market to increase if a ban went in place, but I'm willing to bet heavily that the absolute number of guns would decrease.

And I agree that the single demographic that is most responsible for gun crimes is young men. No disagreement here. I just don't think you'd have much luck singling out that demographic for limitations.

And you never addressed your claim that England has the most gun crimes.