Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Portland shooting  (Read 18166 times)

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2014, 07:20:15 am »

Hi Bernard

I don't believe that a large majority of Americans are in favour of the free availability of guns, I wrote that as a nation there is not enough strength of opinion, which is very different! If the voice of the people who wanted change was loud enough then the opportunity has been there, this is a quote from Obama last week..

Mr. Obama said: “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”

“Until that changes, until there is a fundamental shift in public opinion in which people say: ‘Enough, this is not acceptable, this is not normal, this isn’t, sort of, the price we should be paying for our freedom,’ ” Mr. Obama said, “sadly, not that much is going to change.”

Obviously this is just an isolated quote but it's fair to say that there has been every opportunity for restrictions on gun ownership to be put in place.

So, as America is the land of the free, where the common man can influence his future, it would appear that the majority is pro guns. The President and government, according to some on this thread, are held in check by the threat of an armed uprising if they don't represent the majority. One could assume that the power lies with those who have the guns, is America, rather than the land of the free, actually the land of the armed who can keep the rest in check with the threat of armed action?

I agree that the world is getting smaller, we can only hope that as more and more young people reach out, they will see that there are different ways of doing things, not all will work in all situations but it's possible to positively change things. I think Slobodan has proved that there is a way to go but with luck the younger generation will be more interested in seeing the world as full of opportunity to learn and develop. Maybe facebook and other social media channels can start adding maps to their backgrounds to help the geographically illiterate?

Mat

Indeed, when you are 40 times more likely to meet your demise in a firearm related incident in the US than you are in the UK then certainly there is something amiss.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2014, 11:35:21 am »

The President and government, according to some on this thread, are held in check by the threat of an armed uprising … is America, … the land of the armed who can keep the rest in check with the threat of armed action?

It's the land of gerrymandered electoral districts where the threat to incumbent politicians is that someone more extreme will stand against them in low-turnout party primary elections.

Quote
… 90 percent of House members and 91 percent of senators who sought re-election in 2012 were successful, exceeding the incumbent re-election rates of 2010, when 85 percent of House members and 84 percent of senators seeking re-election were successful.

Congress had a 21 percent approval rating on Oct. 15-16 after reaching all-time lows of 10 percent in February and August, according to Gallup polls. Just 10 percent of Americans said that members of Congress have high or very high honesty and ethical standards, according to Gallup data for Nov. 26-29.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 11:56:50 am by Isaac »
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #102 on: June 16, 2014, 05:40:12 pm »

The US is a constitutional republic, meaning, by design, the states have authority to govern themselves. The federal government has specific powers enumerated in the Constitution, and there are none whatsoever to open some kind of national referendum that would by definition be intended to test the bill of rights. The second amendment will be in force until the Constitution is changed, via the well-established procedure laid out therein. Not likely soon.

We did something like that in the 1920s with prohibition of alcohol, and it turned out to be a disaster. A majority clearly agreed then (and probably still do now) that alcohol caused all manner of social problems. But not very many thought through what would happen after alcohol was banned. It turned out to be unenforceable (just like gun banning would be), and spawned so many new evils that most people preferred going back to the old ones.

The polls do not suggest that most people want guns banned. In many states, sizable majorities would be against that, for reasons listed in several posts above. You can sometimes get a majority to agree to some kinds of restrictions, depending on how you devise the poll, but that’s about it.

The fact is that the trend in violence in the US over several decades is going down substantially, including gun violence. Many states have actually loosened the restrictions on concealed carry of handguns over the last ten years, and still the gun murders drop. Even the level of violence in schools is dropping, despite recent school shootings.

In my state, you have to take four days of classes and get a federal background check to apply for a concealed handgun carry permit. When I took the classes four years ago, permit holders had committed exactly two gun crimes in the entire history of the program. One man carried a handgun into a bar and proceeded to get drunk. The other case had to do with a man threatening another man with a gun under some circumstance I can’t remember. No shots were fired, or persons injured, in either case.

The classes are taught by former law enforcement officers. I was worried that having a permit might make for trouble if I ever got pulled over for a traffic violation or something. It turns out that police officers, at least in this state, relax when they encounter a known permit holder. That’s because they know that, due to the background check, the permit holder has to be a person with no criminal history, no reported psychological problems, etc., etc. The local movie theater used to have signs on the doors that forbade people from carrying in guns, alcohol, your own sodas and so forth. After that lunatic in Colorado shot up that theater a while back, they removed guns from the list of prohibited items.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 06:16:23 pm by Misirlou »
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #103 on: June 16, 2014, 06:18:41 pm »

Same as every other place in the US; a federal background check. That processes in less than a day here. Takes much longer in some states.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #104 on: June 16, 2014, 06:36:18 pm »

The fact is that the trend in violence in the US over several decades is going down substantially, including gun violence.

Really? Some sources seem to contradict those 'facts'.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #105 on: June 16, 2014, 06:41:06 pm »

Really? Some sources seem to contradict those 'facts'.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, if we're going to quote an agenda group, here's something from the CDC, as quoted by the NRA:

"However, firearm-related deaths among all persons ages 0-19 decreased 33 percent through 2009 and 37 percent through 2010. More importantly, the per capita rate of such deaths has decreased to an even greater extent. Among persons ages 0-14, it dropped 44 percent from 1997 to 2009, and 48 percent from 1997 to 2010, while among all persons ages 0-19 it dropped 42 percent through 2009 and 45 percent through 2010."


http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.jpg


« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 06:54:28 pm by Misirlou »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #106 on: June 16, 2014, 07:21:59 pm »

Bart, if we're going to quote an agenda group, here's something from the CDC, as quoted by the NRA:

"However, firearm-related deaths among all persons ages 0-19 decreased 33 percent through 2009 and 37 percent through 2010. More importantly, the per capita rate of such deaths has decreased to an even greater extent. Among persons ages 0-14, it dropped 44 percent from 1997 to 2009, and 48 percent from 1997 to 2010, while among all persons ages 0-19 it dropped 42 percent through 2009 and 45 percent through 2010."

So you are quoting a source that states that amongst infants,  todlers, and schoolkids, which is the fastest growing group of citizens, the relative percentage went down. How about the absolute numbers, for the entire population?

Besides, the greatest decline (after a huge increase in preceding years) pro capita (!) was around the turn of the century, after which it seems to stabilize. Of course with a growing population, the absolute numbers paint a somewhat grimmer picture than the per 100,000 numbers, so guess which ones the gun lobby prefers to use ...

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 07:24:58 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #107 on: June 16, 2014, 08:40:58 pm »

If you buy at a gun show?

Absolutely. The vendors at gun shows are all federally licensed. The only exceptions are individuals who bring a gun into the show to trade or sell to another individual. No different than a buyer and seller who find each other via a newspaper or internet ad. But, in this state, that practice is not legal. If I walk into a gun show with any sort of weapon and attempt to transfer it, I'm required to run the sale through the federal process whether or not I'm a dealer. Same in most states.
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #108 on: June 16, 2014, 09:02:24 pm »

So you are quoting a source that states that amongst infants,  todlers, and schoolkids, which is the fastest growing group of citizens, the relative percentage went down. How about the absolute numbers, for the entire population?

Besides, the greatest decline (after a huge increase in preceding years) pro capita (!) was around the turn of the century, after which it seems to stabilize. Of course with a growing population, the absolute numbers paint a somewhat grimmer picture than the per 100,000 numbers, so guess which ones the gun lobby prefers to use ...

Cheers,
Bart

Yes, because absolute numbers are irrelevant to considering the climate of crime.

Actually, that brings up another point. People worry about things getting "as bad as the wild, wild west." My understanding is that per capita murders were actually very low in the western territories. Much of the endemic gunfighting in the movies is a complete Hollywood fabrication.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #110 on: June 16, 2014, 09:53:46 pm »

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #111 on: June 16, 2014, 10:33:31 pm »

Isaac, you are a better search engine than Google! You display only one or two most relevant results, not pages to wade through, and no ads. Who needs Google when we have you! ;)

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #112 on: June 16, 2014, 11:49:01 pm »

I'm wondering how much the US murder rate is influenced by its incarceration rate (the graphs say it all). There are a lot of baddies off the streets.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #113 on: June 17, 2014, 12:56:53 am »

I'm wondering how much the US murder rate is influenced by its incarceration rate (the graphs say it all). There are a lot of baddies off the streets.

Do you mean there would be even more killings if those gyus were on the street? Or do you mean that people who should never have ended up in jail learn the bad things there and end up creating more violence after their release?

Btw, do we have data showing the correlation between gun killing and previous incarceration?

Cheers,
Bernard

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #114 on: June 17, 2014, 02:12:42 am »

Do you mean there would be even more killings if those gyus were on the street? Or do you mean that people who should never have ended up in jail learn the bad things there and end up creating more violence after their release?

Btw, do we have data showing the correlation between gun killing and previous incarceration?

Cheers,
Bernard

No it was more like… the gun lobby is saying the murder rate is going down but at the same time the US has the highest incarceration levels in the world and it is still increasing. It's a worry!

Then there is this story about the guy who got life for stealing a pair of sox.

Cheers,

Logged
Tom Brown

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #115 on: June 17, 2014, 02:21:40 am »

The original Rolling Stones article is a bit more detailed on this one. The story you quoted dates back 1995, this law was fortunately changed in California in 2012. Nonetheless, this remains one of the most shocking articles I have ever read.
 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327?print=true&src=longreads&buffer_share=d7ec7

The scariest part of the article is probably this one:

Ten years later, when a group called Families to Amend California's Three Strikes, or FACTS, tried to reform the law, it was the same story. They fought to get an initiative onto the ballot, Proposition 66. Two weeks before Election Day, a Los Angeles Times poll showed the measure winning by a nearly three-to-one margin. But days before the vote, an Orange County billionaire named Henry T. Nicholas donated $1.5 million for a major ad buy. Soliciting the support of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his predecessors – including Democrats Jerry Brown and Gray Davis – the anti-Prop 66 camp ran a series of scare ads, including one called "He Raped Me," which showed a middle-aged white woman claiming the initiative would release her attacker, and Polly Klaas' father promising that "murderers, rapists and some very dangerous child molesters" would be released thanks to the new law. It wasn't Willie Horton – the mug shots shown in the ad were mostly all of scary-looking white criminals – but it was in the rhetorical ballpark.

Jerry Brown flew to Long Beach at Nicholas' request, where he recorded anti-Prop 66 radio ads at a studio belonging to Ryan Shuck, guitarist of the rock group Orgy, while Korn drummer David Silveria looked on. The last-minute bipartisan ad blitz worked, and Prop 66 lost by a slim 53-to-47 margin, a come-from-behind win that one pollster at the time called "unprecedented."


You have it right there. Money put on the table by a few guys with extreme views end up manipulating/beating the majority with disastrous effects.

The second puzzling thing in this story, from a political standpoint, is that Democrats did everything they could to prevent the cancelation of this law...

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 10:39:13 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #116 on: June 17, 2014, 11:36:51 am »

You display only one or two most relevant results…

And sometimes just the relevant information --

Quote
Over the same 20-year period, the age-adjusted firearm
homicide rate based on data from the NVSS declined 45%…

The homicide rate for incidents involving other types of
weapons also declined from 1992 to 2011. During this 20-year
period, the rate of murder involving a knife or blunt object
declined by 55%…

The percentage of victims killed by a firearm
remained relatively stable from 1992 to 2011…

The percentage of homicides that involved a
firearm was generally stable across periods for
various victim types…

About half of all firearm homicides in rural
areas involved a firearm other than a handgun…

…the percentage of homicide incidents involving a
firearm increased with the number of victims killed
in the incident.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 10:34:50 pm by Isaac »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Portland shooting
« Reply #117 on: June 17, 2014, 11:40:13 am »

... this remains one of the most shocking articles I have ever read...

Perhaps, Bernard, you should start reading more? ;)
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up