Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[Crimsoncrew]

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

I am pretty sure that most major airports are municipal entities.

 

[deep9er]

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.

'people secure their guns because they always do', are you serious? like how people secure their $600 I-Phones, like men securing keys to $60,000 cars, and like women securing their $500 pieces of jewelry?

it only takes one lost gun for 3 innocent people to get shot in a theatre. it only takes one stolen gun for 4 bystanders to die in a shopping mall gang bang shootout. it only takes one found gun for a 10 year old to accidently shoot his 5 year old sister.

yes, illegally obtained guns got into the wrong hands. so how do they get into the wrong hands? how do guns enter society in the first place? do bad guys go to gun stores and purchase them, or do the good guys go and purchase them first?

 

[deep9er]

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.

one isn't enough? does it need to be yours before it sinks in?

why does it need to be legal once someone is shot?

 

[deep9er]

Sick - what is your point in all of this, to allow women and men over 27 to carry a gun, anywhere, anytime? with background checks of course, but PRO gun with the expressed purpose of detering crime?

crime will go down if more people arm themselves?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

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.

Lengthy article addressing several issues around children accidentally shooting themselves or others with unsecured guns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0

The biggest takeaway is that it's hard to get an accurate count, as few states keep detailed records, and even those that do will seemingly arbitrarily categorize such deaths either as accidents or homicides.

The five states that they looked into in detail averaged 19 such deaths per year over the period they examined. Minnesota had a very low number (fewer than one a year), while NC, GA, and CA were all in the vicinity of five per year. Of course, the article also notes that the majority of accidental shootings don't result in death.

 

[deep9er]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/u...lly-ill-suspects-are-on-the-upswing.html?_r=0

LONG winded but statistically, its worse than I thought. will an armed women or man over 27, deter a mentally ill person?

how do mentally unstable people obtain guns?

 

[deep9er]

allow me one last comment for today..........personally, I fear being shot outside my home much more than in my home. mainly by the mentally unstable, but also by 'stray' bullets from being in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

I would venture more people are shot outside their homes, than inside? so for me the "protect my home" doesn't carry enough justification. the lost of those guns and the movement into other hands, are more detrimental than protecting your home. how many times have a home owner shot to protect his home, versus people being shot outside of it?

I know the answer isn't a total ban on guns, because hunters have to be considered. but if I was forced to choose between extremes of arming people, or banning guns, easy decision to ban guns. the results wouldn't be instantaneous, but logic tells me the less guns in society, the less chance (statistically) of people being shot.

 

[NinerSickness]

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

The most recent statistics I found were from 2011, so feel free to update them if you know what they were more recently. I went FBI.gov and England's version of FBI.gov, which is https://www.gov.uk/

Violent crimes per 100,000 people in England: 1361
Violent Crimes per 100,000 people in US: 386.3

England's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than in the US.

England Robberies per 100,00: 135.9
US Robberies per 100,000: 97.3

England's robbery rate is about 40% higher than in the US.

I don't know of any 1st-world country that has more violent crime and robbery than England. England doesn't offer a breakdown of what percentage of their robberies are armed robberies, but the rate is usually around 40% or higher in most countries.

 

[NinerSickness]

one isn't enough? does it need to be yours before it sinks in?

why does it need to be legal once someone is shot?

No one accidental shooting death is not enough to justify passing a law saying 315 million people can not own guns. If it's such a huge problem, tell me how often it's happening and go from there.

Sick - what is your point in all of this, to allow women and men over 27 to carry a gun, anywhere, anytime? with background checks of course, but PRO gun with the expressed purpose of detering crime?

crime will go down if more people arm themselves?

If they're licensed, conceal-carry people, Robberies would go down, r*pe would go down, theft would go down, home invasions would go down, and public shootings would go down due to the prevalence of mutually-assured destruction. Because, like I said, the rate of gun crimes committed by people with conceal-carry permits is pretty much zero.

I don't know if the woman exception would hold up in court (you never know), but the age one certainly would; there's plenty of case law to back up age-specific legal limitations.

RE: ACCIDENTAL CHILD SHOOTING DEATHS

It actually took a very long time to find, and the most recent statistic I found was from 2007, but of all accidental shooting deaths, 0.2% of them were from firearms. Compare that to poisoning, which happened at a rate 6 times higher than accidental shootings. No, I don't think the 0.2% of accidental child deaths justify sweeping gun regulation. And we still haven't determined what percentages of those gun deaths were by guns that were legally owned.

 

[whysies]

The most recent statistics I found were from 2011, so feel free to update them if you know what they were more recently. I went FBI.gov and England's version of FBI.gov, which is https://www.gov.uk/

Violent crimes per 100,000 people in England: 1361
Violent Crimes per 100,000 people in US: 386.3

England's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than in the US.

England Robberies per 100,00: 135.9
US Robberies per 100,000: 97.3

England's robbery rate is about 40% higher than in the US.

I don't know of any 1st-world country that has more violent crime and robbery than England. England doesn't offer a breakdown of what percentage of their robberies are armed robberies, but the rate is usually around 40% or higher in most countries.

What is "violent crime" and what does it have to do with guns?

 

[whysies]

you numb nuts don't even know the difference between robbery and burglary.

Might also be relevant right about now. But maybe not, we'll see...

 

[deep9er]

No one accidental shooting death is not enough to justify passing a law saying 315 million people can not own guns. If it's such a huge problem, tell me how often it's happening and go from there.



If they're licensed, conceal-carry people, Robberies would go down, r*pe would go down, theft would go down, home invasions would go down, and public shootings would go down due to the prevalence of mutually-assured destruction. Because, like I said, the rate of gun crimes committed by people with conceal-carry permits is pretty much zero.

I don't know if the woman exception would hold up in court (you never know), but the age one certainly would; there's plenty of case law to back up age-specific legal limitations.

RE: ACCIDENTAL CHILD SHOOTING DEATHS

It actually took a very long time to find, and the most recent statistic I found was from 2007, but of all accidental shooting deaths, 0.2% of them were from firearms. Compare that to poisoning, which happened at a rate 6 times higher than accidental shootings. No, I don't think the 0.2% of accidental child deaths justify sweeping gun regulation. And we still haven't determined what percentages of those gun deaths were by guns that were legally owned.

there's nothing new for me to add, if you're STILL for people to carry guns around, you're entitled to your opinion. at this point can't help believe you like to hear yourself argue anyway.

my opinion is stats be damned on this subject, ONE child getting killed is enough for me to want gun reform. if your child gets killed one day, what are you going to tell your wife......"well dear, the stats previously showed................"

if you took your family out to eat sushi. and a mentally unstable guy shot them all dead, what are you going to say in the media......."well the stats showed........"

like other things in life, until it hits home with you specifically...............

 

[NinerSickness]

my opinion is stats be damned on this subject, ONE child getting killed is enough for me to want gun reform.

I'm going to try to minimize the scope of what I'm discussing in this thread if I can re because I spent way too much time on it, but I'm just curious; what specific "gun reform" would you institute, and what specific result would you expect to see from it?

Re: Offenders knowing victims of burglaries (from Bureau of Justice Statistics) 2003 - 2007:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

*Each year from '03 to '07 an average of 3.7 million burglaries occurred in US
*Of those, roughly 1 million occurred when a household member was present
*Of those 1 million, 266,560 (26.7%) household members were victims of violent crime
* In 65% of violent burglaries when someone was home, the assailant was known to the victim.
*If I'm reading this correctly, 3% of the violent burglaries included r*pe.

Also Deep, in your mind how many rapes are the moral equivalent of one accidental child shooting?

 

[NinerSickness]

at this point can't help believe you like to hear yourself argue anyway.

Why do people only ever use that line when they have a dissenting opinion?

If something is a fallacy I'll argue against it. I don't care what it's about. I once got a bunch of grief from a college professor about pointing out bogus 2nd-hand smoking statistics in a "health science" class in college, and I think smoking is absolutely disgusting.

 

[whysies]

I'm going to try to minimize the scope of what I'm discussing in this thread if I can re because I spent way too much time on it, but I'm just curious; what specific "gun reform" would you institute, and what specific result would you expect to see from it?

Re: Offenders knowing victims of burglaries (from Bureau of Justice Statistics) 2003 - 2007:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

*Each year from '03 to '07 an average of 3.7 million burglaries occurred in US
*Of those, roughly 1 million occurred when a household member was present
*Of those 1 million, 266,560 (26.7%) household members were victims of violent crime
* In 65% of violent burglaries when someone was home, the assailant was known to the victim.
*If I'm reading this correctly, 3% of the violent burglaries included r*pe.

Also Deep, in your mind how many rapes are the moral equivalent of one accidental child shooting?

I'm no math whiz but I think the rabbit trail you went down is suggesting that only 4.7 percent of all burglars know their victims. Of course that's not what it definitively says but it's not really doing you any favors when trying to prove your point.

Also, are you going to keep treating robbery and burglary as the same crime or have you worked that all out yet? You don't know what those crimes are, do you?

You do realize burglary doesn't necessarily mean breaking into someone's house to steal shit, right? Burglary could mean breaking in to someone's house to assault them. Or commit a battery. Or murder. Or r*pe. Or arson. It's quite possible that violent burglaries are violent because the intent was to commit a violent crime!

Also, robbery doesn't mean breaking in to someone's house to steal shit either. It's basically a combination of theft and assault.

People originally were saying its kind of fucked up to shoot a guy who is just breaking into your house to steal shit and you went off half-cocked* on some shitcon gunnut rant and started posting stats about crimes that you can't even define.

Come on dude. You're way out of your element here and you're arguing just to argue.

*no pun intended

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm no math whiz but I think the rabbit trail you went down is suggesting that only 4.7 percent of all burglars know their victims. Of course that's not what it definitively says but it's not really doing you any favors when trying to prove your point.

Your math is wrong. There's no way to know if the victim knew the intruder in 73% of the burglaries because nobody was home.

The study didn't say whether the intruder was known in the non-violent break-ins where violence was not committed (I'll look again).

Of the violent break-ins, 65.1% of those assailants are known. 27.5% are strangers. 7.4% are cases where it wasn't determined if the intruder was known or a stranger

Also, are you going to keep treating robbery and burglary as the same crime

Of course not. Robbery is stealing w/ use of force or threat of force. Burglary involves breaking into somewhere.

You do realize burglary doesn't necessarily mean breaking into someone's house to steal shit, right? Burglary could mean breaking in to someone's house to assault them. Or commit a battery. Or murder. Or r*pe. Or arson. It's quite possible that violent burglaries are violent because the intent was to commit a violent crime!

That's even more reason to keep a gun in the house!

 

[whysies]

You edited out the math fallacy broseph

Look, we get it. Your shitcon-addled brain has so warped your sense of morality that you think it's ok to shoot thieves. And that's fine, but there is no sense arguing about that. That is between you and your god (or lack there of).

But if you're going to take a stab at making an cogent argument and one that you're trying to back up with facts and statistics, at least keep your eyes on the ball. Compare apples to apples, know the definitions of words you are using, and don't keep trying to move the goalpost all the time.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The most recent statistics I found were from 2011, so feel free to update them if you know what they were more recently. I went FBI.gov and England's version of FBI.gov, which is https://www.gov.uk/

Violent crimes per 100,000 people in England: 1361
Violent Crimes per 100,000 people in US: 386.3

England's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than in the US.

England Robberies per 100,00: 135.9
US Robberies per 100,000: 97.3

England's robbery rate is about 40% higher than in the US.

I don't know of any 1st-world country that has more violent crime and robbery than England. England doesn't offer a breakdown of what percentage of their robberies are armed robberies, but the rate is usually around 40% or higher in most countries.

You said gun crimes. At least twice. Now it's violent crimes? Make up your mind, Sick.

I've seen these numbers addressed; England does appear to have a higher violent crime rate, though the numbers that are often cited don't accurately reflect the actual reality as "violent crimes" as defined in England is much broader than in the US.

Though I wouldn't think many people would be surprised that a country with significantly higher population density has higher crime rates.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

No one accidental shooting death is not enough to justify passing a law saying 315 million people can not own guns. If it's such a huge problem, tell me how often it's happening and go from there.



If they're licensed, conceal-carry people, Robberies would go down, r*pe would go down, theft would go down, home invasions would go down, and public shootings would go down due to the prevalence of mutually-assured destruction. Because, like I said, the rate of gun crimes committed by people with conceal-carry permits is pretty much zero.

I don't know if the woman exception would hold up in court (you never know), but the age one certainly would; there's plenty of case law to back up age-specific legal limitations.

RE: ACCIDENTAL CHILD SHOOTING DEATHS

It actually took a very long time to find, and the most recent statistic I found was from 2007, but of all accidental shooting deaths, 0.2% of them were from firearms. Compare that to poisoning, which happened at a rate 6 times higher than accidental shootings. No, I don't think the 0.2% of accidental child deaths justify sweeping gun regulation. And we still haven't determined what percentages of those gun deaths were by guns that were legally owned.

Please re-read that. And if it took you so long to find it, just paste the link somewhere. Anywhere.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'm going to try to minimize the scope of what I'm discussing in this thread if I can re because I spent way too much time on it, but I'm just curious; what specific "gun reform" would you institute, and what specific result would you expect to see from it?

Re: Offenders knowing victims of burglaries (from Bureau of Justice Statistics) 2003 - 2007:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

*Each year from '03 to '07 an average of 3.7 million burglaries occurred in US
*Of those, roughly 1 million occurred when a household member was present
*Of those 1 million, 266,560 (26.7%) household members were victims of violent crime
* In 65% of violent burglaries when someone was home, the assailant was known to the victim.
*If I'm reading this correctly, 3% of the violent burglaries included r*pe.

Also Deep, in your mind how many rapes are the moral equivalent of one accidental child shooting?

Even according to these stats, the burglar knew the residents in 7% of burglaries. Nothing about this supports your, "Most burglars know their victims."

In terms of r*pe, 0.2% of burglaries culminate in r*pe. Absolutely devastating for a victim, but a fairly insignificant number in the grand scheme of things.