School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Salandriagado]

I'm pretty sure he was making a hyperbole for the statement "a sizeable portion of the population illegally downloads music". That was sorta implied, guys. Going smartass on someone only pisses them off.

I'm not seeing it - tracking through, the argument seems to be about felonies preventing a good background check result, or something - and the 99% thing is presented as though 99% are criminals (which, I assume, is supposed to correlate to felonies, and thus impact background checks? I'm not sure exactly where it was going).

I think it's entirely possible that - with the huge catalogues of laws 'on the books' - it is possible just about everyone is breaking a law, just about all the time - but I doubt it's downloading, and I doubt it's something that shows on background checks.

If you want to include copyright infringement (which doesn't show up, so far as my limited knowledge of the US system goes), you can actually write off everybody who has ever run an internet business ("taking orders over the internet - patent held by Yahoo).

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Moving back on topic... Almost...

Feinstein's proposed assault weapon ban is broadly similar to a number of California's regulations (no detachable magazines over 10rds, general prohibition on SBR/SBS weapons etc. "Big scary evil black rifles" are also pretty well controlled, as California's regulations state either a fixed magazine or no pistol grip (meaning weapons like the AR and AK have to resort to things like monsterman grips, or settling for Saiga sporters over 'proper-type' AKs).

Yet in 2011, California had the highest firearm homicide rate in the Union. Whilst on a decline from 2010.
And California's gun laws, interestingly, are currently under challenge for being unconstitutionally prohibitive.

[Jocabia]

Moving back on topic... Almost...

Feinstein's proposed assault weapon ban is broadly similar to a number of California's regulations (no detachable magazines over 10rds, general prohibition on SBR/SBS weapons etc. "Big scary evil black rifles" are also pretty well controlled, as California's regulations state either a fixed magazine or no pistol grip (meaning weapons like the AR and AK have to resort to things like monsterman grips, or settling for Saiga sporters over 'proper-type' AKs).

Yet in 2011, California had the highest firearm homicide rate in the Union. Whilst on a decline from 2010.
And California's gun laws, interestingly, are currently under challenge for being unconstitutionally prohibitive.

I blame the California border patrol for not limiting the number of illegal guns coming from Arizona.

Wait a minute, California doesn't have a border patrol. Maybe, just maybe, that doing it nationally is a bit different than doing it locally. Inconvenient logic, but logic none-the-less.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

California does however have a police force that doesn't like bringing out-of-state weapons in-state. They don't let out-of-staters transfer 'foreign' firearms or CCW licences either.

[Jocabia]

California does however have a police force that doesn't like bringing out-of-state weapons in-state. They don't let out-of-staters transfer 'foreign' firearms or CCW licences either.

Which is not the same as border patrol, now is it? The goal of legislation is to limit access to firearms by criminals, but if criminals can get those same firearms with no hassle simply by driving a few hours, then that defeats the purpose, now doesn't it. A federal ban, however, would have the desired effect, because entering this country has a decent likelihood of getting you searched (exponentially higher than entering a state). And since most of the country doesn't even have a passport and lives a several day drive from the border, I think it might just be a bit higher deterrent.

More inconvenient logic for you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Yet in 2011, California had the highest firearm homicide rate in the Union. Whilst on a decline from 2010..

Where did you get that statistic from? I have California polling a firearm homicide rate of 3.09 which is less than a quarter of the rate in DC.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

California does however have a police force that doesn't like bringing out-of-state weapons in-state. They don't let out-of-staters transfer 'foreign' firearms or CCW licences either.

Which is not the same as border patrol, now is it? The goal of legislation is to limit access to firearms by criminals, but if criminals can get those same firearms with no hassle simply by driving a few hours, then that defeats the purpose, now doesn't it. A federal ban, however, would have the desired effect, because entering this country has a decent likelihood of getting you searched (exponentially higher than entering a state). And since most of the country doesn't even have a passport and lives a several day drive from the border, I think it might just be a bit higher deterrent.

More inconvenient logic for you.

But... the firearms already exist in-country...
If someone is willing to go outside a ban area to acquire a firearm that is illegal in-area, then I don't think forcing them to go across the border to Mexico is going to be that great a deterrent. Especially since people already do it.

Yet in 2011, California had the highest firearm homicide rate in the Union. Whilst on a decline from 2010..

Where did you get that statistic from? I have California polling a firearm homicide rate of 3.09 which is less than a quarter of the rate in DC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state
I fudged my years, highest rate in 2010, declining by 3% from the previous year.

I don't even know, the url says 10th Jan 2011, but the article was supposedly posted December 2012.
So it must be highest rate in the union in 2011, declining 3% from 2010.

[The UK in Exile]

Which is not the same as border patrol, now is it? The goal of legislation is to limit access to firearms by criminals, but if criminals can get those same firearms with no hassle simply by driving a few hours, then that defeats the purpose, now doesn't it. A federal ban, however, would have the desired effect, because entering this country has a decent likelihood of getting you searched (exponentially higher than entering a state). And since most of the country doesn't even have a passport and lives a several day drive from the border, I think it might just be a bit higher deterrent.

More inconvenient logic for you.

But... the firearms already exist in-country...
If someone is willing to go outside a ban area to acquire a firearm that is illegal in-area, then I don't think forcing them to go across the border to Mexico is going to be that great a deterrent. Especially since people already do it.

Where did you get that statistic from? I have California polling a firearm homicide rate of 3.09 which is less than a quarter of the rate in DC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state
I fudged my years, highest rate in 2010, declining by 3% from the previous year.

I don't even know, the url says 10th Jan 2011, but the article was supposedly posted December 2012.
So it must be highest rate in the union in 2011, declining 3% from 2010.

call be crazy but doesn't the guardian article show that california has the highest number of gun homicides BUT nowhere near the highest RATE?

what it in effect says is that california is a very big state with an average amount of gun crime.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You're right, I did mess something up.
California still accounts for nearly an eighth of all firearm homicides in the union, however.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You're right, I did mess something up.
California still accounts for nearly an eighth of all firearm homicides in the union, however.

And about 11% of the US population. I'm thinking it's still about average.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You're right, I did mess something up.
California still accounts for nearly an eighth of all firearm homicides in the union, however.

And about 11% of the US population. I'm thinking it's still about average.

As a rate, of course. For the sheer number, not so much.

Meanwhile, Texas has 75% the population of California and just 57% of the firearms homicides, for example.
It's average relative to the rate of the country as a whole, but not due to other factors.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And about 11% of the US population. I'm thinking it's still about average.

As a rate, of course. For the sheer number, not so much.

Meanwhile, Texas has 75% the population of California and just 57% of the firearms homicides, for example.
It's average relative to the rate of the country as a whole, but not due to other factors.

Population density and geographic location also account for those changes. Texas is not as densely populated, which means less tensions between actors. It also doesn't have features that force dense pockets of humanity.

[The UK in Exile]

And about 11% of the US population. I'm thinking it's still about average.

As a rate, of course. For the sheer number, not so much.

Meanwhile, Texas has 75% the population of California and just 57% of the firearms homicides, for example.
It's average relative to the rate of the country as a whole, but not due to other factors.

Texas' Self defence laws might play a part in that. Texas is a "stand your ground" State. a number of what might be called "murders" in california, wind up classifed as "no-case".

[Samozaryadnyastan]

That goes along with why DC is way up there at the top for firearms deaths per 100k, when they have the highest population density in the union.

[The Emerald Dawn]

That goes along with why DC is way up there at the top for firearms deaths per 100k, when they have the highest population density in the union.

While a social creature, mankind prefers not being directly on top of each other unless foreplay is involved.

[Jocabia]

Which is not the same as border patrol, now is it? The goal of legislation is to limit access to firearms by criminals, but if criminals can get those same firearms with no hassle simply by driving a few hours, then that defeats the purpose, now doesn't it. A federal ban, however, would have the desired effect, because entering this country has a decent likelihood of getting you searched (exponentially higher than entering a state). And since most of the country doesn't even have a passport and lives a several day drive from the border, I think it might just be a bit higher deterrent.

More inconvenient logic for you.

But... the firearms already exist in-country...
If someone is willing to go outside a ban area to acquire a firearm that is illegal in-area, then I don't think forcing them to go across the border to Mexico is going to be that great a deterrent. Especially since people already do it.

Correct, they do already exist in-country. That's what we're trying to stop.

And, going to mexico isn't going to work, since they get a lot of their firearms from us. And the firearms will be more expensive. Passing the border patrol is more difficult than not passing the border patrol. These aren't even opinions. We know this to be true. You're not even debating that it's not.

Are you claiming that it will have effect on availability? Are you claiming that buying a gun is no more difficult than traveling to Mexico, getting a gun and bringing it past border patrol and traveling back? It's exactly as difficult? Is that your claim?

[Jocabia]

And about 11% of the US population. I'm thinking it's still about average.

As a rate, of course. For the sheer number, not so much.

Meanwhile, Texas has 75% the population of California and just 57% of the firearms homicides, for example.
It's average relative to the rate of the country as a whole, but not due to other factors.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/ ... death-rate

Texas is WAY higher for firearm deaths. That's good evidence that they don't classify things as homicides the same way that California does.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

...
Homicides are homicides.
Don't forget that suicides in the US make up more than half of firearm deaths on average.

[Jocabia]

...
Homicides are homicides.
Don't forget that suicides in the US make up more than half of firearm deaths on average.

If they have different laws, you have to account for the difference in those laws. Even if that is inconvenient to your point. What would qualify as a homicide in California would not necessarily be a homicide in Texas.

If you think suicides account for the difference, prove it. What I just proved is that more guns equal more gun deaths. Which is an adequate reason to limit access to guns.

[Jocabia]

Here is the problem with your claim.

Let's say 60% of the gun deaths in Texas were suicide. That makes 4.44 the non-suicide deaths. In order for California to have a significantly larger problem with non-suicide firearm deaths, which was your claim, they would have something like 4.65/8.3. That would make roughly 45% of their firearm deaths suicides. That means that California would have a suicide by firearm rate resembling 3.65 per 100K and Texas would have a firearm suicide rate of something 6.67, nearly double that of California.

Is your argument that Texas is so messed up that despite having a population density that is one third of California's, it has a intentional firearm death rate that is only about .21 per 100K lower than California but a suicide by firearm rate that is double? And if you argue that the difference between California and Texas is even more stark, then that's an even more incredible problem because it makes a really, really great argument for gun control.

http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio ... 4E2FADB8EA

And according to statistics, Texas does have a higher suicide rate, it's even likely to be related to firearms, but it's not double.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

California firearm homicide rate 3.5, Texas firearm homicide rate 2.91
1220 to 699.

57% the absolute number with 75% the absolute population. The Texan firearm homicide rate is about a sixth less than that of California.

[The UK in Exile]

...
Homicides are homicides.
Don't forget that suicides in the US make up more than half of firearm deaths on average.

Except the Guardian article isn't homicides, its murders.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

...
Homicides are homicides.
Don't forget that suicides in the US make up more than half of firearm deaths on average.

Except the Guardian article isn't homicides, its murders.

If the Americans make difference between 'homicides' at large and 'justifiable homicide', isn't it a suitable leap of intuition that 'homicide' and 'murder' can be used interchangeably?

[The UK in Exile]

Except the Guardian article isn't homicides, its murders.

If the Americans make difference between 'homicides' at large and 'justifiable homicide', isn't it a suitable leap of intuition that 'homicide' and 'murder' can be used interchangeably?

well then Homicide isn't Homicide. it'll vary from state to state.

[Jocabia]

California firearm homicide rate 3.5, Texas firearm homicide rate 2.91
1220 to 699.

57% the absolute number with 75% the absolute population. The Texan firearm homicide rate is about a sixth less than that of California.

I know you want to keep ignoring this, but they have different rules for what qualifies as a homicide. We've already pointed this out. It's not complicated. In Texas I can kill someone and walk away like nothing happened where if I did the EXACT same thing in California it would be considered a homicide.

Now, here is the part where you repeat yourself a third time and pretend like there is no difference when there is.

I just proved that the only way California can have a higher non-suicide firearm death rate than Texas is if California has a firearms suicide rate of less than half of Texas's rate. I also showed the difference in suicide rates between the two states, it doesn't even resemble half. There is a gap there. People are killing other people with guns at a higher rate in Texas. Sometimes Texas doesn't call it homicide but that doesn't change the fact.