thank god for abortions

The most dangerous place to be is in the womb.

Politicians don't speak facts. They speak fear.

*Promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, January 1st, 2013 6:37am PST - promote requested by original submitter Barseps.

"Attention, gun-ban-nuts: Open Skull, insert brain.

Louisville slugger sells a large number of aluminum bats every year to the UK-

Why didn't he show stats for crime rates in UK metropolitan areas? Wouldn't that be the most interesting comparison?
Also, the US may have 6 times as many metro areas, but it also has six times the population of UK and Wales.
...oh.. and please, "data" is plural.

I agree that he should have shown urban crime rates in the UK if those datas <wink> are available.

But if you assume (dangerous I know) the trends are similar, then 3 times the violent crime rate (per capita) in 1/6th the number of metropolitan areas means that UK cities are 18 times as violent as American cities.

As I pointed out.. it's about the same number of metro areas per capita, and the video didn't mention the actual populations living in metro areas in the two countries. Also, I wouldn't assume that UK non-metro areas are demographically similar to their US equivalents. I think we need to see the per capita violent crime in metro areas stats for both countries.
If anyone here has these, post them!

The problem is poverty as he noted. The problem then is that the Republicans don't care about the working poor, and see them as leaches and want to cut the programs that help them survive without having to resort to crime.

We also need to know if both countries consider violent crime the same. That is, while they use the same word, does the UK have a broader definition of violent crime? And as Grinter pointed out, how is the crime spread out over there? If it isn't just in the largely poor areas of large metropolitan areas than there is another issue at play than poverty and that may need exploration. He also didn't show if the UK was going up or down for the same 20 year period.

I agree however that we need to look at how violent crime and murder rates have come down, and need to explore how those were achieved.

The problem (as I see it) is that we're conflating every-day street crime (which is statistically more rare than it used to be) with horrific gun rampages (which are statistically more common than it used to be, and obviously more rare than every-day street crimes.) They're completely different animals. Choggie would have us believe that baseball bats are just as dangerous as AR15s. Certainly, statistically, that is true when we're discussing average crime-rates. However, I've never heard of someone bludgeoning a classroom full of preschoolers with a louisville slugger.

As Americans, we have to decide: are we OK with horrific gun rampages a few times every year? Is your right to own a military sidearm or rifle worth the occasional shooting spree? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the price of freedom.

Certainly, absolutely we need to address street crime and the factors that contribute to it. However, its obvious from these statistics that WE ARE. The crime rate has gone down.


And yet the shooting spree rate has gone up.

What I learned from this video:

1) People in Uk are more violent than in US
2) US have more metropolitan areas
3) Metropolitan Areas a dangerous
4) Media is biased

--> 1 Holly Crap, didn't know that. I'm so glad that there gun possession law are so strict, otherwise... Is it actually possible to be less violent than somebody else and still have worse homicide ratio?
Homicide Worldwide
--> 2 True
--> 3 If this is the case, what should we do to safe our children from psychopaths. Moving to small places; massacre never happened there. Maybe gun possession restrictions. Sounds nice, more wrestling less gunfights and so less lethal injuries. NO, just joking. I need my AK to kill wild boar ruining my lawn. We are fucked!

So the UK has a higher violent crime rate and yet also less homicides? The UK has some of the strictest gun laws, and a gun homicide rate of 0.07per 100,000. This is 1/40th of the states. How much of this correlation is causation? I don't know, but I reckon if the UK suddenly go lax on gun laws that 0.07 figure would only change one way.

As for the drop in crime in the states...well, it reminds me of an episode of The Wire. A big drop like that and nobody wants to take credit for it? One can't help but wonder if thats because the goal posts have been moving. That or somebody created Amsterdam zones on the quiet

OK, so what is the definition of "violent crime" that these two sources he cites uses?
Granted, I don't know the first thing about US or UK law, however I should think that the UK and US has some varying definitions of what is considered a violent crime. So unless you are comparing the actual crimes from each country, or you compare only the crimes that fit into the definition of "violent crime" in both countries, you are comparing apples to oranges. If the higher rates of the UK are due to the label "violent crime" setting a wider net of offences than the US or vice versa, then this video is just as misleading as the media lying with statistics to further an agenda, however well-intended the person is who's making it.

Dude.....Yer thinkin' too hard.
1, Give the Brits their guns back and let God sort out the rabble, more guns means less brain-dead drunks who are prone to brawl anyway because of life under the decaying crown and their Nazi fucking rich family lineage of bend-over and take it. Hehe, to all you Brits: Now they gave it away and want you to like it? Fuck them.

2. True, so what, false or meaningless, guns are tools and a wedge against the ultimate douchebags...namely, any government gone fallow.

3. No man, live where you want, when you want, and take a gun with you along with your winning fucking personality...lifes' a bitch, and sometimes you need to improvise.

4. Create your own source of infotainment with a view to not listening to ass-magnets babbling about how you should think for yourself in light of such a world-wide ass-fuck.

Now. Breath. See?? Life is better with or without guns!

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by ant.

Good post.

There are always so many things could have an influence. A simplistic explanation is always going to be self serving and misleading.

Example: I bet just the move to credit cards (cash-less society) has lowered violent crime (muggings) by at least a small amount.

As a Criminal Justice student we reviewed studies on the effects of gun control (ineffective in the U.S.), death penalty (ineffective as deterrence), etc.

A very large influence to the crime rate was inequality and the number of people who feel disenfranchised from the mainstream.

The availability of social programs and safety nets (or lack of) also had a great effect.

That was years ago and the analysis has been out there for a very long time - but never used in any meaningful way.

If this guy wants to dig into "facts" and "data", why he didn't confirm what exactly US and England consider to a "violent crime" and to make sure that those numbers were counted the same way?
For all we know domestic violence might not be considered to in this category or crimes were charges were not filed or thousands of other possibilities.

This video is borderline racist with its subtext that black people living in ghettos is the problem.

Since 1964, Americans have spent 15 TRILLION dollars fighting the "War on Poverty" with nothing to show for it but more poverty.

Here's the Cliffs Notes for this sift: MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME.

Violent Crime =/= Gun Violence.

I'm uncomfortable with that whole analysis.

Australia has had great success in curbing gun violence. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

Also, a new study has found that the stand your ground laws are linked to increased homicide and have done nothing to deter criminal activity. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide

guns are bad, m'kay.

Perhaps if your beloved so called "job creators" paid people a living wage rather than horde more and more of their profits for themselves there wouldn't be a war on poverty. They can't even pay their employees a rate that keeps up with inflation. Worker compensation goes up 5.7% since 1978, while CEO pay 726.7%. You right wing folks cry foul if the government taxes the rich about "spreading the wealth" but don't care that the rich are stealing the money earned by the hard work of the working class and keeping it at the top. Want to stop spending so much of your tax dollars helping the poor? How about your heroes paying everyone a living wage? How about they start hiring people again rather than fire people so they can have a jet? When the job creators start doing that then we can complain about how much tax money goes to helping the siftless who refuse to work and "want a handout". When some rich guy, <cough>Romney</cough> making $20 Million a year off investments actually spends $15 to $19 Million of that making businesses that just run off those investments rather than just holding it for their own greed, then we talk about a war on poverty... if I made that kind of money I wouldn't need even $1 Million a year, I'd stop around $150k (+/- cost of living adjustments from this area to whatever area I was in) and the rest I'd put into making stores or something, paying people living wages... $20 million a year would pay a lot of people a living wage.

And to be clear, I believe in the right to start your own business, and to be compensated for the risk, but when over half of your workers need food stamps, and you are making $18.7 Million a year, most of that in very low tax capital gains, then I start having issues. Nobody needs that kind of money, nobody. I'm not saying that everyone should cut off at the $150k (+/- cost of living for a given area) that I'd stop at, but after $250-$500 or so it starts to get bad if they aren't paying everyone under them a living wage (and if they are all being paid a living wage, then start hiring more people rather than keeping minimum staffing).

But no, they hold it for themselves, they fire thousands of people and keep the rest an minimum wages for over 3 years so they can have and keep their jet, their incomes greatly increase year to year compared to the rate of inflation while the few people they keep aren't keeping pace, and you people on the right complain about the poor rather than looking at the people responsible. You complain about how the poor are all just lazy... stop your job, work with the poor, take a job in retail working minimum wage for 10 to 20 years of your life. Most of those people want better jobs, they don't want a hand out, they want something better for themselves and their kids. Most of the poor want out, not by a handout, they want good jobs, but the "job creators" care only about increasing their pockets rather than helping their employees. Every person I know who gets government assistance (and that is a very large percentage of the people I know) would love to make a living wage and be off government assistance, a great many of them are embarrassed to be on the government roles and take it only because the only other choice would be take their kids and live on the streets, while the business owner or CEO hired by the company they work for jets around from mansion to mansion.

YEAH!?!...What he said!

Oh and dystop, those two links you offered-up??....I understand now why you're so conflicted on the subject of matter occupying space in a Jello brand pudding vacuum.

I make that at least half a million dollars for every family in the lowest third of income in the US. Did they really get this money?? What did they spend it on? Baggy jeans?

Also the nihilist mass shootings are all from the well fed white/asian middle class right?

Some of you probably know I'm a few shades pinker than Castro. Yet I'm disappointed by the left on this matter. I first got nervous when the gun control debate began following the Javon Belcher (KC chief player) incident. It seemed ridiculous to me because obviously no form of reasonable gun control could have stopped an incident like that. It was a linebacker murdering his slight girlfriend and then committing suicide. He didn't need a gun. Still the media began the debate as though they were clearly itching too. That was quickly overshadowed by the Sandy Hook tragedy which was a much more effective rallying cause. Obviously it's natural for the debate to be rekindled after that sort of an incident, but I was disappointed by how disingenuous and emotionally driven it seemed. I couldn't help but think about the availability heuristic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic ) and how obviously it was coming into play. I thought the left would be better than this. We're supposed to be known for our rejection of knee-jerk responses preferring instead data driven policy. I was reminded of the Republican line-toeing following 9/11. It honestly sickened me.

The fact is every stat I've seen supports this guy's claim (and I spent many hours doing my own research, not just quoting links I found on huffpo or whatever). There is effectively no data that supports the sort of legislation being put forth and virtually no reason to fear that your children are at risk. Basically every case made against assault rifles can be made with much more conviction about alcohol. They are things that a subset of people enjoy, yet occasionally cause harm to people that don't. Alcohol much more so (by a huge factor, something like hundreds depending on how you measure it) than assault rifles. This incident is being used in keeping with Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Don't get duped just because they are playing to your fears instead of redneck fears.

Also, it isn't racist to suggest that a large portion of the US murder rate is urban gang and drug related. That's a fact. That someone would even suggest that it is racist further sickens me. You all seem more interested in political correctness than data. Put on your skeptics hat folks. Question what you believe for once.

I believe common assault is considered a violent crime in the UK and that can be as little as pushing someone.

I agree with a lot of what he says here, especially regarding solutions. However he does rather gloss over the fact that if the violent crime definitions are similar enough to be worthwhile, the UK murder rate is almost 3 quarters lower than the US (1.3 to 4.7) - Which says to me restricting public access to firearms lowers the death toll.

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts in this blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

"We could do many things to ensure that only fully vetted people could get a licensed firearm. The fact that 40 percent of all guns in the U.S. are legally purchased from private sellers without background checks on the buyers (the so-called “gun show loophole”) is terrifying. Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally. Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners."

My mom thinks me using facts is racist. Poor people tend to be black. Poor people tend to commit crimes. White people tend to move away from black neighborhoods. I suppose I should have spent less time studying political behavior in my state and more time making jokes.

"What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" "A job." - From the woman who calls me a racist for saying most violent crime in the US is black on black crime.

The biggest issue with the mainstream and statistics is that unless it plays into their stereotypes of behavior, they don't care. And when it does, they don't really care about the real cause.

From Wiki: (Violent Crime, UK)

"Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime.[8]
Rates of violent crime are in the UK are recorded by the British Crime Survey. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin on "Crime in England and Wales" summarizes the findings of this survey. For the 2010/2011 report,[9] the statistics show that violent crime continues a general downward trend observed over the last few decades as shown in the graph.
"The 2010/11 BCS showed overall violence was down 47 per cent on the level seen at its peak in 1995; representing nearly two million fewer violent offences per year."[citation needed]
Regarding murder, "increasing levels of homicide (at around 2% to 3% per year) [have been observed] from the 1960s through to the end of the twentieth century". Recently the murder rate has declined, "a fall of 19 per cent in homicides since 2001/02", as measured by The Homicide Index.
By contrast, there is a widespread belief that violent crime is on the rise, due largely to a mass media which disproportionately reports violent crime. This phenomenon is described by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature."

(Violent Crime, US)

"The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It should be noted that these crimes are taken from two separate reports, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and that these do not look at exactly the same crimes. The UCR measures crimes reported to police, and looks at Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. The NCVS measures crimes reported by households surveyed by the United States Census Bureau, and looks at assault, rape, and robbery. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than two thirds between the years 1994 and 2009.[10] 7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[11] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at yearend 2008 were in for violent crimes.[11] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes.[12]"



------------------------

If you didn't want to read that babble, quick and simple: they're one and the same. From my understanding, both countries use the Type 1 list: a crime against a person in which injury or death may occur. In some cases, just because no one was hurt, doesn't mean it wasn't a violent crime.

Which brings up the other point to be made. Is the reporting of the crimes uniform? Do the Brits report EVERYTHING, as opposed to what's somewhat routine here in the states where crimes often go unreported, even when the police show up? Domestic violence only exists if one person files charges. The victim could be bruised, bleeding, broken bones etc, but if they're not willing to file a charge, no crime occurred.

Or, more so, do street brawls get reported more often in the UK? If I punch some dude, does that go onto a record somewhere where as in the states, I've been in many fights where even if the police broke it up, no reports were ever filed.

All of this is useful information, but so far the data is pretty superficial. The comment the video makes about "put on your boots and go find out" (paraphrased) is pretty much the only solution I can think of. Then again, it's the same solution that people have been chanting for for generations and have yet to see the high and mighty Elite do it.

doesn't anyone else think that stopping mass shootings is just a side benefit of working to fix the larger problem? VERY few people in the US are killed in mass shootings (compared to other sources of death), but we do have millions of people obsessed with implements of death. The collection of tools for killing is one of the biggest hobbies in this country. That's messed up! We are messed up.
And on a deeper level, why are we more prone to random mass murder than are other populations? Only a few may do it.. but do you really think that the underlying sickness is limited to those that act on it in this way? These people are mushrooms poking out here and there from the huge rotten mass underneath.

You're a fucking idiot and i'm ashamed i have to share the same species with you. However i respect your right to an opinion - that one was just mine.

"less brain-dead drunks who are prone to brawl anyway"
-- I find it touching that you chose to highlight the aggression and neanderthal nature of the british people, using aggressive and neanderthal behaviour and language.

People don't just collect them. They enjoy shooting them. I don't own any, yet I can see why firing some FMJs from a Bushmaster would be fun. Similarly, people like to get drunk (a much more common hobby). I can also see why that might be fun. As you might expect, that hobby results in many more fatalities than all gun related deaths, yet the prohibition of alcohol is not on the table.

This myth that guns only exist to kill things needs to go. Most guns never kill anything. They are fun to shoot, just like slingshots and boomerangs. I would never say the only purpose of a boomerang is killing. For all of the above the primary purpose is entertainment. I'm of the opinion that methods of entertainment should not be forcibly banned by the government unless they represent a significant problem. I won't be convinced that ARs have crossed that threshold until everyone is willing to kiss off their liquor as well.

Respectfully, I think this reply illustrates our collective efforts to rationalize the gun culture in an attempt to relieve the cognitive dissonance we feel.
Guns are fun to shoot. They also are designed to kill.
"It's fun to play with the tools of death" is a hard thing for us to say out loud.
So, we layer on the excuses: "The second amendment", "shooting is a sport", "hunting is quality time with the family", "It is irresponsible not to be prepared to defend one's family."
With every pop at a target on the range, the truth smacks us in the face, and each time we bury it away below the sham we have built.

If the data from the two countries does indeed correlate, here's what I take from the data. Firstly, you're more likely to be in a violent situation in the uk. However, if you find yourself in a violent situation in the states it's far more likely to be deadly.

People in the uk don't routinely carry around weapons. If someone knocks your pint out of your hand in a pub he's very very unlikely to be carrying a gun so he's a lot more likely to get a slap. I would imagine a lot of this 'petty' violence is less prevalent where the person you slap could pull out a gun and shoot you. If the two sets of data are comparable this is where the difference comes from.

So there's the trade off. Personally I'd rather get fifty slaps than be shot once. When teenagers go out in the uk the parents worry that they'll come back with a black eye, not that they'll be back in a body bag...

"Drinking poison is fun" is a much better mantra. Until you take a consistent position, i.e. "the government should ban all things at least as dangerous as X no matter how much enjoyment myself or others derive from them", I can't respect your view. It's nonsense.

More interesting data: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Alcoholic drinks were not invented because they are deadly. They are not optimized for peak killing efficiency. Guns are.
We do drink to poison ourselves because that is fun. ..to poison ourselves a little bit, that is.
...I'm kinda surprised that you chose to stick with the alcohol argument.
Also, you missed the point of my post. It's not about the government banning things. It's not even about the risk to life or bodily health that guns represent.
It's about self delusion and destructive obsession:

Yet alcohol kills more people, even if we only count the people that weren't drinking and especially if we don't count the people shooting themselves. People that own guns aren't deluded. They know exactly what they have and respect it for what it is. They just happen to enjoy it. The people that think guns are more destructive than drink are deluded. The numbers just plain don't support your argument.

˙noʎ ʇıɐq oʇ uɐǝɯ ʇ,upıp ı 'ʎɹɹos
˙pǝɹıʇ s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʇuǝɯnƃɹɐ „pooƃ ǝɹɐ sunƃ 'pɐq ǝɹɐ sƃnɹp„ ɐ oʇuı ʇǝƃ oʇ ǝɹǝɥ ʇsod ʇ,upıp ʎןǝʇɐuıɟǝp ı
˙ɔıdoʎɯ sı sƃuıɥʇ ǝsǝɥʇ uo snɔoɟ ʇɐɥʇ ʇno ʇuıod oʇ ʇdǝɔxǝ ˙˙'dıɥsɹǝuʍo unƃ uo ʎɔıןod ɥʇıʍ ɹo sǝɹnƃıɟ ʎʇıןɐʇɹoɯ ɥʇıʍ op oʇ ƃuıɥʇou pɐɥ (ʇsod snoıʌǝɹd ʎɯ ǝʞıןun) oʇ ƃuıpuodsǝɹ ǝɹǝʍ noʎ ʇsod ǝɥʇ 'ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ ɹoɟ
˙ǝuıɟ ˙sn ǝɥʇ uı ǝɹnʇןnɔ unƃ ǝɥʇ ʇnoqɐ ʎɥʇןɐǝɥun ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ǝǝɹƃɐsıp noʎ os

I'm arguing gun culture is no more unhealthy than many other tolerated subcultures (e.g. drunks). I also think it is inconsistent if not hypocritical to call one out and not the other. Finally, I think painting millions of people based on their ownership of inanimate objects requires too broad a brush. Who are you to cast judgement?

We should probably do something about the elephant in the living room because he is shitting on the furniture.
I'm not judging the elephant, but I am saying that we should start trying to find a more sensible arrangement.

As for talking about the elephant being hypocritical because we've also got a hippo in the bathtub.. well, there's a donkey on the roof, a croc in the kitchen, a pangolin in the vestibule, and there's a goat in my bed. You know what? You're right; maybe we shouldn't mention the elephant.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. Love it or leave it my friend. Personally I find living at the zoo to be entertaining if unnerving and smelly. Still, far be it from me to talk about shit on the furniture when I'm flinging it on the walls.

Just curious though... how is she? I've heard goats will eat anything.

That's funny I just came across this story a few days back. NBC covered it.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Also to his "We have 6 times more large metropolitan areas than England and Wales" point. That is just about what you would expect given that have close to 6 times their population.

US : 314 Million, England & Wales : 56 Million

If you want to talk about gun violence, show gun violence statistics. If you want to talk about violence in general, show general violence statistics. But don't talk about gun violence, show general violence statistics, and talk about media conspiracies.

It started out compelling with unbiased sources, then proceeded downhill.

I've tried to dig this up myself, but as I think it's universally agreed, the categorization of crime and the regional differences makes it hard to make an apples to apples comparison. As much as I can see, the US crime rate is low and getting lower, however the percentage of gun homicide is still much higher than comparable G8 countries and is a worthwhile discussion:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Banning guns is retarded; a reasonable discussion about restrictions to access is much less... retarded.

Care to elaborate?

After reading most of the posts, all I can think of is:

LOUD NOISES

Wait! What?

"The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:
9.9% of all non-Hispanic white persons
27.4% of all black persons."

US Population by Race:
White or European American 223,553,265 72.4 %
Black or African American 38,929,319 12.6 %

# of poor white people = 22,131,773
# of poor black people = 10,666,633

I think your mom thinks you're racist because you probably kind of are and facts don't seem to factor in it.

You misunderstand the motivation for the language of stereotype used to describe the general dynamics of alcohol in Great Britain, i.e., a pub at every intersection-Hey man, alcohols' the last legal drug here in the states as well for the same reason: Governments and international criminals (same same, but different, as they say in Thailand) control the drug trade around the world. They limit which drugs may be manufactured or sold. They make incredible amounts of money doing so.

Governments and international criminals also corner the market on guns and artillery and ammunition and do their best to control the distribution and manufacture to insure one thing: Control and centralization of power.

We're not suggesting Brits are more prone to drunkenness and brawling than the same sort of tits in the U.S. I am simply suggesting sane remedies that do not involve baby-out-with-bathwater solutions to some seriously flawed fundamentals: societal and cultural evolution should be determined by sober consensus without emotion instead of this bullshit, "But what about the children?!" line of reasoning promulgated by criminals in power...A line that is trumpeted by so-called representatives and used as a tool (kind of like a gun is a tool) along with the complicit and effective tool of propaganda called market television, or major media, or whatever label for abject disinformation and agenda-pumping that benefits a few that some people who see owning guns as horrifying, have bought into.

The way to keep your children safe form psychopaths is to reinvent society and gradually change culture in a direction that heals the planet instead of raping it. Less fucking insane parents mean less fucking insane kids. Fuck licensing firearms, how about licensing parents before they plop out another?

How do you cure a country like North Korea, whose people for a few generations have been systematically trained in totalitarian shit-think?? It's a job no one wants to think about. As long as planetary ass-rape is the direction we are headed, guns guns guns my easily-insulted brother, and less shit-think. I'm not a fucking idiot, but my government is being run into the ground by cunts and assholes and douchebags who have most of the control over most of the guns and drugs! See how simple it is??

Guns violence by a FEW + International media coverage with a view to convincing people that guns (OF ANY KIND OR CAPACITY) are the problem = what should be an insult to your intelligence at the very least, and a goddamn warning shot across the bow that World Police State is what the cunts really want for humanity.

Gun control happens shortly after a gun is manufactured, unless you want to accidentally hurt yourself or another utilizing another kind of control. Self-Control maybe??

Yeah man. The article on Aussie gun laws from the CSmonitor? Not apples and oranges man, AU has a completely different cultural and societal evolution that the U.S. and their knee-jerk legislation over a spree in 96' and coincidental lack of shooting sprees since is a bullshit point, but in the single-sentence 2nd paragraph it's used as a transitory sort of justification leading straight into the Connecticut story, remedial and insulting journalistic hackage.

Stand Your Ground laws were made to catch dumb-fucks in the act for more fodder for those who would legislate guns out of people's hands completely. Florida fucked-up, the laws they had were fine.
Stand Your Ground laws surrounding last-year's case in Florida are used as ammo by those who simply utilize destructive and de-evolutionary shit-think to propose agendas which limit individual free-will and personal empowerment. Stand Your Ground Laws aren't bad because they offer an alternative to being killed by some douche with or without a gun-They are bad because a justifiable use of force in self-defense is my goddamn right as a meatsack breathing air and I'll be fucked if I'll do a second of jail-time in the U.S. before leaving the country, should I be so accused of breaking some confabulatory law that goes against any personal action I know to be human-righteous. When society tries to fuck me, fuck society, I'm outta here.

Oh yeah, the Jelllo pudding vacuum....I'll get back to you on that one!

I see much similarity between US and Australian culture. What, in your mind, would prevent America from having similar success in regards to gun reform? You believe Australian gun reform and the sudden subsequent drop in gun massacres are unrelated. Are you able to support this?

So you are saying the 'Stand your Ground' laws were created as a conspiracy to bait dumb gun owners into killing people, thus creating a public backlack against guns? That's a new one.

Is it possible for a person to have an opinion different from your own without being a de-evolved shit-thinker? *crosses fingers*

If your main argument in favor of guns is free will and personal empowerment, then why do you concern yourself with whether or not guns make society a better place? Do negative externalities matter?

I'm not going to comment on the other half of your comment, but will put my 2c in on this part.

Although Australian and U.S. culture might be similar in many ways, the way we regard gun ownership is quite different to what has been discussed here on the sift, so @chingalera certainly has a point re apples and oranges.

The knee-jerk legislation has been vindicated by the follow-up study widely mentioned... and I'm not going to say it has stopped shooting sprees, since there could easily be one tomorrow but it is very hard to argue that it hasn't at least reduced them, since they were quite common pre-1996 and unknown since.

Gun violence hasn't necessarily been reduced as much as gun control advocates might say, but one specific type has been greatly reduced - suicides. The study doesn't explain why though, which is something that would be very interesting to know if you were thinking of drafting legislation on the subject.

One other thing worth mentioning is that I don't think it would be possible to pass the Australian legislation in the U.S.

On the subject: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hammer-attack-then-death-comes-to-spring-street-20121212-2b8h9.html

His "data" is from two countries that define violent crime differently (violent crime is not necessarily gun crime), not to mention none of it supports his ending rant/conclusion about gun crime. It's non sequitur rubbish, aka "baffle with bullshit".

Perhaps if your beloved so called "job creators" paid people a living wage rather than horde more and more of their profits for themselves there wouldn't be a war on poverty.


>>> You are your own boss, whether you work for someone else or not. You create the value and sell your time and labor to others, and can increase the value of both in many ways: providing solutions for others, inventing new products or boosting your own knowledge base. Yep, there are socialist countries that will pay you a living wage to push a broom, and those economies can't hope to compete with non-socialist economies.


I will go out on a limb and assume that you would shop exclusively at a Wal-mart-type store that paid their employees a living wage as opposed to the real Wal-mart? There aren't enough such "conscious consumers" to sustain such a business.


The problem with your narrative is you believe that the wealthy all won some type of lottery, that they did not provide any service or create an invention that yielded deserved financial rewards. This is a common sickness surrounding socialism: the game is rigged and those at the top are there by pure chance. This is what Obama was raised to believe.


The rich pay the lion's share of taxes in America, while the bottom half pay NOTHING in income tax yet get plenty of benefits. This model is nothing new, the ancient Athenians taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate than the poor. The difference is they didn't endlessly spend and create money out of thin air. I'm not against the social safety net, but what we have now is unsustainable and beyond ridiculous.


I agree that many of these CEOs are overcompensated turds, but they are a small part of the problem. In order for them to be paid, stockholders have to be happy, and for stockholders to be happy, a business has to be successful. Only in the fantasy world of government is anything too big to fail.


You're somewhat awakened in that you see that the ole government's robbing peter to pay paul routine doesn't work. Wonder where the trillions went? First and foremost, to con artists and bureaucrats, who gobble up so much of every dollar seized by government very little reaches the intended recipients, and that will NEVER change. "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."


If you want to attack "greed", start with these Obama worshipers who nonetheless sheltered their own wealth when it came time to pay up.


http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/01/obamas-tax-evaders-of-the-year/

There are other studies showing a different result:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=246605

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia for a list

Basically when you look back in time past the gun buy back you see a linear rate drop in murder by firearms that is not affected by the buy back.

In fact, there are more firearms now in Australia than before the gun buy back (and the ownership rate is still increasing) and yet the murder rate by firearms is much lower than it was at the gun buyback point (and it is still decreasing).

Here's some facts and ideas. We have a very good mental health program. We have a world class free medical system. We have a world class welfare system for the unemployed/disabled/old/single parents/etc. We have world class free education to year 12 and then government subsidised university education. We have a 99% literacy rate. We have a high rate of satisfaction with life in this country. Our quality of life in general is one of the best in the world for just about everyone. I'd suggest this has a lot to do with our low murder rate.

The goat's got sharp teeth. That's causing a problem.
..but, as you say, 'better not to address any problems rather than to address only some problems'.

While I'll concede he gives a generally more accurate view of stats than most, he still commits the same basic fallacy of failing to distinguish how each country defines violent crime. You do realise "violent crime" is a blanket term, right?

Take a look at this:

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

In sum, if we concentrate on individual crimes. You're more likely to be carjacked, burgled, raped, suffer aggravated assault, murdered and shot in the US than in the UK.

Let's try that again. If it doesn't work, go to wordpress and search for dispelling the myth uk vs us guns.

or basically dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com

That is how a Democrat would view it. As an independent I see culpability with both major political parties. Democrats are to blame for high crime rates in these economically depressed areas, because they are the engineers and enablers of the system which keeps poor people poor and robs them of ambition. Without an economically disadvantaged and undereducated class of voters, Democrats would have a much lower voter base.

Most of the crime committed is not done for survival. Most crime is a result of a gang culture. Gang cultures are the result of lack of education, disparity in the justice system, hopelessness, collapse of family units (which results in the need of place to belong), lack of employment prospects, etc. Both parties are at fault for not properly addressing the underlying causes of crime.

Republicans have the right idea in trying to limit social welfare programs. The problem is that they are looking at it from the standpoint of dealing with those who are collecting benefits. The problem needs to be addressed in altering the mindset and futures of the youth with a result to be seen in a generation and not a presidential term. It has taken generations of Democrat sponsored social philanthropy through a massive benefits sytem to get us to this point. It will take at least a generation to begin to get out of it.

RFlagg,

I agree with what you've stated about CEO compensation and taxation of the wealthy. I've said the same thing for years. Reagan did the country a disservice by cutting taxes for the wealthy by half. Now, the wealthy are crying at the prospect of a few percent increase. The wealthy are as guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Republicans as the poor are guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Democrats. After WWII, the top tax bracket was paying more than 90% in taxes. For decades after WWII the top bracket was 70%. We need to be heading back in that direction. We also need to be reducing welfare programs by retraining and educating beneficiaries and properly educating their children.

I also believe that corporations with public shareholders should have salary caps for CEOs and upper management. Too often, shareholders lose money on their investments while CEOs receive shockingly high compensation for failed leadership. A board of directors, when voting on compensation, is not looking at the best interests of the shareholder. A board member is seeing potential for themselves in bloated CEO and leadership compensation.

It apparently came to the author's attention that he made a mistake in calculating the numbers for violent crime for the UK vs the US.

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Regardless, you are still more likely to be burgled, have your car stolen, be raped, suffer aggravated assault, be shot and murdered in the US than in the UK.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, January 1st, 2013 6:37am PST - promote requested by Mordhaus.