Is it time for Red Flag laws?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... "Research suggests that stop-and-frisk had few effects, if any, on crime in New York City."...

I already explained on page 11 what I think of those "researches," and why each research, taken individually, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

But again, you can't have it both ways: you can not argue, as the linked article does, that the reduction in crime in New York was due to mayor Giuliani's strategies and at the same time claim that his strategies were not efficient.

I mentioned it earlier in another thread what explains the paradox of "stop and frisk" "not working." The main argument in that research is that "stop and frisk" did not result in arrests (for illegal possession of guns). Well, duh! The very fact that thugs knew they might be stopped and frisked and, if illegal guns found on them, end up in jail, prevented them from carrying illegal guns with them on the streets.

in physics, the effect is known as "observer effect." Since you like Wikipedia, here is the explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

In physics, the observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon.

P.S. Did I mention that when ACLU prevented Chicago police from "stop and frisk," the shootings soon doubled? How's that for "no effect"?

[RSL]

It's no use Slobodan, These guys know what they believe, and nothing -- nothing -- is gonna change their minds. There's absolutely no question whether or not Giuliani cleaned up New York. Even these people will agree that he did. They haven't much choice. But they'll argue that the methods he used are ineffective. Of course that doesn't make sense, but . . .

The sad part of it is that in England the murders will go on and on because nobody is willing to learn anything from people like Giuliani. It's Darwin at work. Let natural selection take its course.

[OmerV]

I already explained on page 11 what I think of those "researches," and why each research, taken individually, should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

But again, you can't have it both ways: you can not argue, as the linked article does, that the reduction in crime in New York was due to mayor Giuliani's strategies and at the same time claim that his strategies were not efficient.

I mentioned it earlier in another thread what explains the paradox of "stop and frisk" "not working." The main argument in that research is that "stop and frisk" did not result in arrests (for illegal possession of guns). Well, duh! The very fact that thugs knew they might be stopped and frisked and, if illegal guns found on them, end up in jail, prevented them from carrying illegal guns with them on the streets.

in physics, the effect is known as "observer effect." Since you like Wikipedia, here is the explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

P.S. Did I mention that when ACLU prevented Chicago police from "stop and frisk," the shootings soon doubled? How's that for "no effect"?

I admit the Telegraph article mostly illustrated the different approaches between London and New York. But if you don't consider research, then what's left? Just opinions. And our own observations, which apparently can't be trusted and will subjectively influence what we believe to be true. Oy.

Still, the Wiki research is on the effect "stop and frisk" has on crime, not guns specifically. It uses "weapons and contraband." Also, stops on probable cause are more effective and carried less social difficulties baggage.

As for Chicago, I don't know. A culture from the past that won't stop, like a car engine that keeps running after is has been turned off? But where are the guns coming from? After all, there is no such thing as an illegal gun, only illegal ownership. So all the guns used by criminals were at one time in legal ownership, but have ended illegally in criminal hands. How? Oi, does the gun lobby believe criminals have the right to gun ownership?


EDIT: Not that it means anything but this is my last post on this thread.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...The sad part of it is that in England the murders will go on and on because nobody is willing to learn anything from people like Giuliani. It's Darwin at work. Let natural selection take its course.

And not just England, looks like Illinois too. You can’t make this stuff up. It seems that idiocy is unlimited.

“Illinois Dems push bill rewarding schools that replace armed officers with therapists”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/19/illinois-dems-push-bill-rewarding-schools-that-replace-armed-officers-with-therapists

Because, you know, nothing increases your street cred in high school like being seen visiting a therapist. Or confronting an active shooter with soothing words: “And how do you feel about it?”

[Rob C]

I suppose we could just arrange for everybody on Earth to have a gun, sane, crazy, old, young, wise or stupid. Much as is already the status in some lands.

Then the laws of natural competiton would kick in, resolving at last the problems associated with overpopulation.

We'd have a world of natural "winners"! What's not to like?

Rob

[Farmer]

It's no use Slobodan, These guys know what they believe, and nothing -- nothing -- is gonna change their minds. There's absolutely no question whether or not Giuliani cleaned up New York. Even these people will agree that he did. They haven't much choice. But they'll argue that the methods he used are ineffective. Of course that doesn't make sense, but . . .

The sad part of it is that in England the murders will go on and on because nobody is willing to learn anything from people like Giuliani. It's Darwin at work. Let natural selection take its course.

Ah, yes.  "Russ and Slobo know what they believe, and nothing -- nothing -- is gonna change their minds".  Seriously, you can do better than that.

Also, London has been dealing with crime and murders longer than the US has existed.  In your play book, shouldn't you be listening to them with the greater experience?  Darwin and natural selection are at work, and Americans are the ones with the greater propensity to depopulate themselves at approximately 5 times the rate of the UK or Australia and 2.5 times more than Canada.  The US has 4 cities in the top 50 for murder rates - the UK, none.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Americans are the ones with the greater propensity to depopulate themselves at approximately 5 times the rate of the UK or Australia and 2.5 times more than Canada.

Yes, mate, when losing the argument, switch the subject. Let’s talk about “propensity” to depopulate, rather than actual population growth. By your logic, the US, in the last 200+ years, should have already “depopulated” itself to the size of, say, Australia or Canada? Instead, everybody and his mother-in-law are risking life and limb to come to this “horrible” country to “depopulate” it.

[RSL]

Ah, yes.  "Russ and Slobo know what they believe, and nothing -- nothing -- is gonna change their minds".  Seriously, you can do better than that.

Also, London has been dealing with crime and murders longer than the US has existed.  In your play book, shouldn't you be listening to them with the greater experience?  Darwin and natural selection are at work, and Americans are the ones with the greater propensity to depopulate themselves at approximately 5 times the rate of the UK or Australia and 2.5 times more than Canada.  The US has 4 cities in the top 50 for murder rates - the UK, none.

Thanks, Phil. You illustrated my point perfectly.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Good, Slobo.  We agree.  More guns means more capacity.  Therefore, less guns means less capacity.  Whilst more capacity doesn't mean it will be taken up and used, less capacity must actually limit the maximum possible usage.  So less guns would result in less incidents.

That makes no sense. If there is an excess of capacity over usage, reducing capacity cannot be said to have any effect on usage until it starts to encroach on usage.

If I want to carry 2 litres of water around, reducing the size of my bottle from 5l to 4l will have precisely zero effect on me.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks, Jeremy, I missed that logic nugget from our mate

[Farmer]

Yes, that's correct, Jeremy and Slobo.  But at some point, you reduce the capacity to the point that it does impinge on usage.  That's entirely logically sound and makes perfect sense.  Clearly, with so many weapons, reducing those with dozens of guns by a few would have no impact, but we're talking about whether reductions can have any impact on usage and clearly it can and does once you remove enough of them.

Points to Jeremy for his pendency and it's a valid point, but stopping there and saying the general premise doesn't make sense is disingenuous!

[Farmer]

Yes, mate, when losing the argument, switch the subject. Let’s talk about “propensity” to depopulate, rather than actual population growth. By your logic, the US, in the last 200+ years, should have already “depopulated” itself to the size of, say, Australia or Canada? Instead, everybody and his mother-in-law are risking life and limb to come to this “horrible” country to “depopulate” it.

Actually, a percentage, we have more immigration here including people risking life and limb.  That's hardly the point.  I'm on topic.  You (and others) claim that gun control can't have any impact, but it clearly can.  More guns and Americans murder each other at 5 times the rate of places with less guns, so the argument that knives, spoons, forks, and teddy bears are just as dangerous (because people kill people, right?) is clearly absurd, as is the suggestion that London or the UK have a massive problem compared to the US.

[Farmer]

Thanks, Phil. You illustrated my point perfectly.

Yes, Russ, we get it.  Because we disagree with you, we're wrong, but the fact that you can be viewed in exactly the same way on the opposite side of the discussion reflects nothing right?  You're immune to your own proposed cause and effect?

You believe you have the ultimate and only correct set of experiences to know everything.  I get it.

[LesPalenik]

Gun availability is a big factor. I'll refer to my last post (#231) on the previous page.

Availability of weapons, though, can be shown to have an affect on gun and crime rates. 

>>> as demonstrated last night in Indiana, when a toddler was playing with her father's handgun when she shot her pregnant mother Tuesday in a northwest Indiana parking lot.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/18/toddler-shoots-pregnant-mom-merrillville/527416002/

1.  Availability of the gun played an important role in this accident.
2.  Most likely, the toddler learnt about guns and how to use them by watching some shooting movies
3.  Parents and their attitude were another contributing factor. Presumably, it was easy for the father to get that gun. But not so easy to think ahead and act responsibly.
4.  Although a freak accident, such situations are not uncommon (265 people shot in USA by kids in 2015)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/31/kids-accidentally-shot-people-5-times-a-week-this-year-on-average/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5c4eb1d4002

[Rob C]

Gun availability is a big factor. I'll refer to my last post (#231) on the previous page.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/18/toddler-shoots-pregnant-mom-merrillville/527416002/

1.  Availability of the gun played an important role in this accident.
2.  Most likely, the toddler learnt about guns and how to use them by watching some shooting movies
3.  Parents and their attitude were another contributing factor. Presumably, it was easy for the father to get that gun. But not so easy to think ahead and act responsibly.
4.  Although a freak accident, such situations are not uncommon (265 people shot in USA by kids in 2015)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/31/kids-accidentally-shot-people-5-times-a-week-this-year-on-average/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5c4eb1d4002

Of course you're right, Les; it's blindingly obvious, even if some folks can differentiate some imaginary lack of connection between number of deaths from the combination of quantity of weapons and opportunity for shit to happen.

Better go have a coffee or a walk - it'll be a more productive process! I'm off to make my bed, after which a shower and perhaps I may even try to make my own lunch, having bought some stuff that I shall otherwise have to dump.

Now there's a moral quandry: having bought this stuff, will it be the more moral decision to go ahead and cook it, using scarce resources, only to have a so-so-at-best meal, or should I dump it and eat out again? Will some poor sod somewhere else in the world starve because of that decision, or will it make not the slightest difference either way?

;-(

[LesPalenik]

Rob, IMHO, it will be a tastier and healthier meal if you cook it yourself. And by not throwing out the existing food ingredients, you'll help also the environment.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rob, IMHO, it will be a tastier and healthier meal if you cook it yourself. And by not throwing out the existing food ingredients, you'll help also the environment.

Why? I assume what Rob eats is biodegradable? 😉

[Rob C]

Why? I assume what Rob eats is biodegradable? 😉

Slobodan, even Rob is biodegradable!

In the event, I did make my own, and the damage now sits smiling at me and stinking in the kitchen. The meal itself was just boiled potatoes, a large red pepper fried along with a solitary egg. It tasted okay, but as ever, I wonder why the hell I bother. It's amazing how many utensils get used in that simple production.

(That said, I have discovered that my French chef is on the last year of his ten-year lease, and wants to retire/cut his losses? It was bad enough in winter when he closed. but if he's not there in summer, either...)

I sat on the terrace on three different white plastic chairs. Two, I realised purely by chance, have developed a split in exactly the same place: where the armrest meets the main back section. Well, after perhaps twenty or so years of service I can't really complain. Our first outfit was a set of those wrough iron things, full of whorls and designs, and with matching table. They look very cute, but are terribly dangerous: the tough bits rust beneath the white plastic coating where you can't see 'em, and as happened with one of ours, a  neighbour fell on his ass when the thing gave way once as he was eating with us. One of our early cats used to wear a flea collar, and one day I heard a bit of a commotion and on going outside I found the poor mother hanging from it, caught on one of the curlicues  No more metal, thanks.

Trouble is, I now have a few matching plastic chairs to try to get rid of somehow; perhaps Sky News will send a team round from England to come interview me and pick 'em up as part of their massive publicity campaign to rid the world of plastic.

Rob

[Jim Pascoe]

I sat on the terrace on three different white plastic chairs. Two, I realised purely by chance, have developed a split in exactly the same place: where the armrest meets the main back section. Well, after perhaps twenty or so years of service I can't really complain. Our first outfit was a set of those wrough iron things, full of whorls and designs, and with matching table. They look very cute, but are terribly dangerous: the tough bits rust beneath the white plastic coating where you can't see 'em, and as happened with one of ours, a  neighbour fell on his ass when the thing gave way once as he was eating with us. One of our early cats used to wear a flea collar, and one day I heard a bit of a commotion and on going outside I found the poor mother hanging from it, caught on one of the curlicues  No more metal, thanks.

Trouble is, I now have a few matching plastic chairs to try to get rid of somehow; perhaps Sky News will send a team round from England to come interview me and pick 'em up as part of their massive publicity campaign to rid the world of plastic.

Rob

Teak Rob - that's the way to go.  I have a teak bench in the garden that we bought in around 1987 - it's still going strong, never been inside, and you know what our English weather is like.  So if you invest in a teak chair/bench it will probably give you a lifetime of use.........

Jim