Orlando

[faraway saint]

The message isnt aimed at them and as I said on another thread I dont spend my time criticising the families of murdered people.

The fact remains however that these people didnt die because you can buy guns in Walmart.

These people died because a crazy bastard decided to kill them.

Love to see you stand in front of these families and tell them that.

????

[oaksoft]

Love to see you stand in front of these families and tell them that.

Why would anyone possibly want to stand in front of murder victims families and tell them ANYTHING?

[shull]

Wish the Roads were quiet and clear.

[Bud the Baker]

Even more interesting is the apparent fact that the absolute number of murders in the US by guns over the last two years are the lowest since the 1960s.

This goes some way to explaining why adopting the Faraway Saint method of solving problems by thinking about things for 10 seconds before leaping to a (usually wrong) conclusion is best avoided.

The facts are that gun murders in the US are decreasing in line with other crimes as well.

No doubt you're correct but there may be other factors involved in this - better emergency healthcare and whether murder means all deaths attributable to unlawful shooting are two that spring to mind.

Even if your figures are kosher is that reason enough to support the status quo?

From your cold, dead hands oaky..........

Edited June 17, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Kendo]

After a mass murder shooting in Australia in 1996 gun control was brought in. There hasn't been one since.

In the previous 18 years there had been 13 mass shootings where more than 4 people were killed each of the shootings.

Murders with guns have dropped by 60%.

Youngsters committing suicide with guns has reduced dramatically.

[pozbaird]

Why would anyone possibly want to stand in front of murder victims families and tell them ANYTHING?

Indeed. Just tweet what you want to tell them.

[Stuart Dickson]

Even more interesting is the apparent fact that the absolute number of murders in the US by guns over the last two years are the lowest since the 1960s.

This goes some way to explaining why adopting the Faraway Saint method of solving problems by thinking about things for 10 seconds before leaping to a (usually wrong) conclusion is best avoided.

The facts are that gun murders in the US are decreasing in line with other crimes as well.

As is gun ownership Oaksoft as I pointed out earlier in the thread. Hunting isn't as fashionable in the US as it used to be and these days fewer than 1 in 3 adults in the US own a gun of any description. The US doesn't need new gun laws, it just needs to do the things it currently does more efficiently. As I've said you can pick up and handle a gun in most of the major US shopping malls and most are stocked unlocked, next to their ammunition yet most of their gun crime is committed by people using guns that have been obtained illegally.

In the UK when Tony Blair reformed our gun laws to ban handguns we saw the number of gun crimes committed increase dramatically - indeed they almost doubled. And recently our Scottish Government announced they were increasing the number of armed police offers by 45% despite there not been any specific threat in Scotland. The US don't need our advice on how to run their country.

[oaksoft]

No doubt you're correct but there may be other factors involved in this - better emergency healthcare and whether murder means all deaths attributable to unlawful shooting are two that spring to mind.

Even if your figures are kosher is that reason enough to support the status quo?

From your cold, dead hands oaky..........

I am a scientist bud. Evidence first. Conclusions second.

You may or may not be able to provide CORRELATION between gun ownership and murder rates but you need to then go on and prove causality.

At that point you will get me on your side.

Theres nothing personal in this either way. I make decisions on a daily basis on causal evidence alone.

No reason to start changing what I know to reliably work now just because this particular incident resulted in mass deaths.

The murderer was a crazy bastard who targetted his victims because they were gay. Get rid of these types of people and you can have everyone owning 100 guns each and their will be no gun crime. I cant take anyone seriously who thinks otherwise without proof.

Edited June 17, 2016 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

After a mass murder shooting in Australia in 1996 gun control was brought in. There hasn't been one since.

In the previous 18 years there had been 13 mass shootings where more than 4 people were killed each of the shootings.

Murders with guns have dropped by 60%.

Youngsters committing suicide with guns has reduced dramatically.

I might be wrong but I think in most developed countries violent crime of all sorts is at a 40 to 50 year low despite the public perception that things are worse now.

There is a social scientist who believes that the intoduction of legal abortions in the 70s has caused this because of the type of person most tradiationally likely to have abortions. I havent seen any causal evidence though.

[Kendo]

I might be wrong but I think in most developed countries violent crime of all sorts is at a 40 to 50 year low despite the public perception that things are worse now.

There is a social scientist who believes that the intoduction of legal abortions in the 70s has caused this because of the type of person most tradiationally likely to have abortions. I havent seen any causal evidence though.

Crime in the USA would be even lower if gun ownership was controlled.

The police shot 1,100 people last year in the USA.

In UK the police shot 3 people.

The bottom line is gun control will be introduced in the USA. However unfortunately it will take a lot more mass shootings until they say enough is enough.

[Kendo]

Oh and another thing I've been to a few American football games in the USA. Security is tight like going through an airport you get scanned etc. Why don't they allow people to take guns into the games?

Also I'm in my fifties and I tried to buy a beer but they wouldn't sell it without I.D. However have I wanted to buy a sub machine gun then that would have been O.K. I could get pissed and walk about with it.

The crazy fools have got their priorities all to cock.

I ask what's the biggest risk? They even banned alcohol in the 30's but allowed gangsters to run about with guns selling the stuff.

[Stuart Dickson]

Oh and another thing I've been to a few American football games in the USA. Security is tight like going through an airport you get scanned etc. Why don't they allow people to take guns into the games?

Also I'm in my fifties and I tried to buy a beer but they wouldn't sell it without I.D. However have I wanted to buy a sub machine gun then that would have been O.K. I could get pissed and walk about with it.

The crazy fools have got their priorities all to cock.

I ask what's the biggest risk? They even banned alcohol in the 30's but allowed gangsters to run about with guns selling the stuff.

Oh FFS. The government allowed gangsters to run about with guns selling it did they? Jesus wept.

[Bud the Baker]

I am a scientist bud. Evidence first. Conclusions second.

You may or may not be able to provide CORRELATION between gun ownership and murder rates but you need to then go on and prove causality.

At that point you will get me on your side.

Theres nothing personal in this either way. I make decisions on a daily basis on causal evidence alone.

No reason to start changing what I know to reliably work now just because this particular incident resulted in mass deaths.

The murderer was a crazy bastard who targetted his victims because they were gay. Get rid of these types of people and you can have everyone owning 100 guns each and their will be no gun crime. I cant take anyone seriously who thinks otherwise without proof.

You keep on saying you're a scientist as though this automatically makes anything you say more valid than anyone else who posts on the site which it usually, and certainly in this case, isn't.

My point wasn't about a possible correlation between gun ownership and murder rates it was pointing out a TV program that explains the power of the NRA and how they have thwarted or watered down all attempts to control the sale of guns in the US.

I didn't see the relevance to this in your first reply, merely a vague factoid, and am certainly not impressed by the braggadocio of this one - tragedies like Orlando follow no scientific rules so how you respond to it comes down to what you think is right. If it wasn't for the evidence of your 8,000 and rising previous posts I would have imagined your reply to be tongue in cheek, sadly I know it's not.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Kendo]

Oh FFS. The government allowed gangsters to run about with guns selling it did they? Jesus wept.

Yes they were called the Untouchables.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I am a scientist bud. Evidence first. Conclusions second.

Is there an option to pin quotes? I feel I could get repeated use from this ;-)

[Stuart Dickson]

Yes they were called the Untouchables.

Ah right....where Hollywood isn't fiction. We'll ok let's say that movie was 100% fact based why was Kevin Costner and Sean Connory... erm Elliott Ness and the FBI.... on their case if the government permitted it?

[oaksoft]

Crime in the USA would be even lower if gun ownership was controlled.

Based on exactly what causal evidence?

[oaksoft]

You keep on saying you're a scientist as though this automatically makes anything you say more valid than anyone else who posts on the site which it usually, and certainly in this case, isn't.

My point wasn't about a possible correlation between gun ownership and murder rates it was pointing out a TV program that explains the power of the NRA and how they have thwarted or watered down all attempts to control the sale of guns in the US.

I didn't see the relevance to this in your first reply, merely a vague factoid, and am certainly not impressed by the braggadocio of this one - tragedies like Orlando follow no scientific rules so how you respond to it comes down to what you think is right. If it wasn't for the evidence of your 8,000 and rising previous posts I would have imagined your reply to be tongue in cheek, sadly I know it's not.

Of course you would intepret it that way. Why wouldn't you? You are the same as everyone else on here. A wee bit of thought and then a huge leap to a conclusion.

I am simply explaining my thought process and why I think that way.

The scientific principle is as relevant to this discussion as it is to virtually everything else.

Sadly during the aftermath of events like this the vast army of idiots in our society come out from under their rocks, add 2 and 2 to get 17 and proceed to mouth off about ridiculous guff like banning firearms as being the solution to targetted mass murders. It needs challenged not because I give two f**ks about gun owners in the USA but because it is as useless at solving the problem as it is utterly and completely brainless to consider it in the first place without causal evidence to support that view. If you ban firearms you send the entire thing underground just like it has done in the UK. Mass murderers who can't get a gun at Walmart will simply find ways of accessing those weapons from other sources. Just as happens in the UK.

There is nothing tongue in cheek about my opinion on this.

[Kendo]

Based on exactly what causal evidence?

Based on what happened in Australia when they done it.

ETA Australia done it in 1996.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Kendo

[oaksoft]

Is there an option to pin quotes? I feel I could get repeated use from this ;-)

If I get through a couple of days without contradicting myself I'll be quite happy.

Not afraid to be proven wrong or to make a twat of myself Tone. You should try it. It's very liberating.

Reduces stress and avoids all that anger you and Faraway seem to store up inside yourselves before venting on the forum in spectacular fashion in front of the tiny handful of posters who don't have the pair of you on ignore.

Edited June 18, 2016 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Based on what happened in Australia when they done it.

ETA Australia done it in 1996.

And how do you explain the large drop in crime in most other developed countries over the same period when they didn't make any changes to gun ownership laws?

Edited June 18, 2016 by oaksoft

[Guest TPAFKATS]

If I get through a couple of days without contradicting myself I'll be quite happy.

Not afraid to be proven wrong or to make a twat of myself Tone. You should try it. It's very liberating.

Reduces stress and avoids all that anger you and Faraway seem to store up inside yourselves before venting on the forum in spectacular fashion in front of the tiny handful of posters who don't have the pair of you on ignore.

Actually your whole post is a contradiction.

Oh, once again, I'm not angry :-)

[Kendo]

And how do you explain the large drop in crime in most other developed countries over the same period when they didn't make any changes to gun ownership laws?

https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE

This is like Stu and Oaky being interviewed.

I'm out of this stupid debate.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Kendo

[Bud the Baker]

Of course you would intepret it that way. Why wouldn't you? You are the same as everyone else on here. A wee bit of thought and then a huge leap to a conclusion.

I am simply explaining my thought process and why I think that way.

The scientific principle is as relevant to this discussion as it is to virtually everything else.

Sadly during the aftermath of events like this the vast army of idiots in our society come out from under their rocks, add 2 and 2 to get 17 and proceed to mouth off about ridiculous guff like banning firearms as being the solution to targetted mass murders. It needs challenged not because I give two f**ks about gun owners in the USA but because it is as useless at solving the problem as it is utterly and completely brainless to consider it in the first place without causal evidence to support that view. If you ban firearms you send the entire thing underground just like it has done in the UK. Mass murderers who can't get a gun at Walmart will simply find ways of accessing those weapons from other sources. Just as happens in the UK.

There is nothing tongue in cheek about my opinion on this.

Who's telling you that - the voices in your head?

That really is just about the most paranoid statement I've seen posted on this site!

****************

hard sci·ence

NOUN

a science such as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested

All you've provided is a vague factoid about murder rates in the US over a number of years - and you've ignored my questions about it's validity. Then you've trotted out your Walmart mantra which is just the sort of unsubstantiated leap you're accusing everyone else of making, only in your case it's worse because you lack the precisely quantified and tested theories the scientific principles entail.

RealLife^TM is not a hard science.

Starting from this initial mistake, much of what you say is wrong.

Not just wrong, but embarrassing and stupid.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[oaksoft]

https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE

This is like Stu and Oaky being interviewed.

I'm out of this stupid debate.

TBH I dont blame you. You are struggling to make any sort of valid point and I know how hard you find it to accept others opinions when they differ from yours.

I sympathise with you. I really do. Your wee brain must overheat at times like this. There must be a thread on here on something easier for you to deal with like cheese, Eastenders or some celebrity unfollowing some other celebrity on twitter. Maybe stick to that.

Edited June 18, 2016 by oaksoft