Federal courts keep ruling against new gun laws

[Hercules56]

See: the thread title and the opening post.

I think the rulings are flawed but do some good, you?

 

[Norman Alexander]

The USA doesn't have to be invaded by illegals who might kill them. Americans are doing a perfectly good job of killing themselves. In fact, determinedly so.

The USA is determined to become a nationwide cemetery of gun victims, and any remainder will be living in squalor. They will be too afraid to leave their houses and walk the streets, go to work, shop or go to school. Because none of them will know for sure when or where the next "freedumb-lovin'" gun-wielding nutcase will show up and start spraying bullets around. Even His Divine Majesty Emperor Trump, Regent for Life, Praised Be His Name, will be too afraid to leave his Royal Dump Palace in Florida.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I am from a not-very-gunny place, so it is possible that I am missing some nuance here, but I am having trouble understanding this.

Why would "gang violence or crime" related shooting events resulting in 4+ deaths not be mass-shootings?

Is a mass-shooting not, by definition, an act of "criminal violence"?

A "stricter more discriminating definition of 4+ people killed" would include "gang violence or crime", would it not? And if not, what reasoning makes these not mass-shootings (aside from what appears to be an attempt to fudge the numbers)?

This, as I was wondering the same thing.

Hercules, want to address this?

 

[arthwollipot]

The rest of the Western world don't have the terrible crime problems that we have. And many parts of the Western world have very strict gun laws but are still swamped with crime and murders.

Yes it does. What we don't have is criminals who routinely carry guns. Because we make it harder for them to get one.

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem isn't guns, it's social unrest. People feel so unhappy and powerless that they resort to gun violence because nothing else they do seems to matter. Politicians are trying to legislate their way out responsibility for the conditions their own antisocial and self serving policies have created.

The addition of guns makes social unrest more lethal.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes it does. What we don't have is criminals who routinely carry guns. Because we make it harder for them to get one.

Indeed! You can probably buy an AR-15 on the black market in Australia. Unlike 'Murica when you can pick up an ATI Milsport AR-15 for $420 with few if any issues, a black market AR-15 in Australia will cost you in the order of $20,000 to $30,000... and you'll have a problem getting ammunition for it. This puts it outside of affordability for some ******* crazy wannabe school shooter.

 

[jt512]

The rest of the Western world don't have the terrible crime problems that we have.

Yes it does. What we don't have is criminals who routinely carry guns. Because we make it harder for them to get one.

No, it doesn't. According to this data, anyway, only two European countries—France and Sweden—have higher crime rates than the U.S.

 

[Norman Alexander]

No, it doesn't. According to this data, anyway, only two European countries—France and Sweden—have higher crime rates than the U.S.

Apples and oranges. Or perhaps, it's more like apples and bicycles.

"Crime rate" does not equal "gun crime". The "crime rate" in your stats is "all reported crime", not "gun-related crime". E.g. In France it is a crime to serve blue cheese with oysters. In Sweden, it is a crime to not drive a Volvo.

And population size plays a part - per capita. If an American shoots someone dead, that's a 1 in 330 million event. It's a 1 in 68 million event in France, and a 1 in 10.5 million event in Sweden. So the result of one shooting murder in France is the equivalent of 5 shootings the USA, while 1 in Sweden is the equivalent of 30 shootings in the USA.

 

[smartcooky]

No, it doesn't. According to this data, anyway, only two European countries—France and Sweden—have higher crime rates than the U.S.

Again, you are wrong..

Hercule56's claim was "The rest of the Western world don't have the terrible crime problems that we have. "

Arth's reply was "Yes it does. What we* don't have is criminals who routinely carry guns. Because we make it harder for them to get one."

In context, *we means "the rest of the Western world"

You cherry picked two European countries when literally neither of the people you quoted mentioned Europe!! You did that as a fudge job to make your evidence look better. Very dishonest of you to do that - I expect better from you



https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

The USA is only ranked 57th out of 144 countries. At least 25 of those countries with crime rates WORSE than the USA are countries in the Western world...

1. Venezuela
5. South Africa
6. Honduras
7. Trinidad And Tobago
9. Guyana
10. Jamaica
11. Peru
13. Brazil
16. Namibia
18. Argentina
21. El Salvador
22. Bolivia
23. Puerto Rico
25. Dominican Republic
26. Colombia
27. Ecuador
30. Bahamas
32. Chile
37. Maldives
38. France
40. Mexico
42. Costa Rica
47. Uruguay
48. Malaysia
53. Paraguay


The USA is not even close to the worst as Hercules56 claims.

 

[Nessie]

One reason why the UK has so few gun deaths;

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news...s-jailed-for-shooting-attempted-bike-thieves/

"Armed vigilante brothers jailed for over 40 years after shooting at motorcycle thieves"

The actual sentences are 30 and 14 years, of which 20 and 9 are served in prison before they can apply for parole and the rest is on licence, so they can be sent back to prison on mere suspicion they have breached the licence conditions. The older brother will be 75 years old before he completes his sentence.

 

[jt512]

Apples and oranges. Or perhaps, it's more like apples and bicycles.

"Crime rate" does not equal "gun crime". The "crime rate" in your stats is "all reported crime", not "gun-related crime".

Well, Herc said, "The rest of the Western world don't have the terrible crime problems that we have." To which Arth responded, "Yes, it does."

Which I refuted with with stats about the thing they were disagreeing about, namely, "crime."

 

[jt512]

Again, you are wrong..

Hercule56's claim was "The rest of the Western world don't have the terrible crime problems that we have. "

Arth's reply was "Yes it does. What we* don't have is criminals who routinely carry guns. Because we make it harder for them to get one."

In context, *we means "the rest of the Western world"

I was assuming that Herc and Arth were using the common definition of "Western World" depicted by the dark blue countries here, or something thereabouts. Why you would think they were disagreeing that Latin America and other lesser-developed countries have more crime than North America or Europe (or NZ or Australia), which would seem to be uncontroversial, is unclear.

 

[smartcooky]

I was assuming that Herc and Arth were using the common definition of "Western World" depicted by the dark blue countries here, or something thereabouts.

When someone says the Western World, I consider them to be talking about all the countries that make up Australasia, Europe, and the Americas... like is says in link provided.

"The Western world, also known as the West, primarily refers to various nations and states in the regions of Australasia, Europe, and the Americas."​

In case you hadn't noticed, every country I listed is in "Australasia, Europe, and the Americas" with the exception of South Africa and Nambia, which are developed countries not in the Orient.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Well, Herc said, "The rest of the Western world don't have the terrible crime problems that we have." To which Arth responded, "Yes, it does."

As in, "Yes, all modern countries have crimes, some of which are terrible such as murder, rape and arson."

Which I refuted with with stats about the thing they were disagreeing about, namely, "crime."

Which I pointed out is such a broad description of such diverse acts that it could encompass almost anything.

Turkiye is a very modern country, but it is a crime to insult the president there - people are in jail now for this criminal outrage.

In Australia, we could swear at the Prime Minister to his face and simply be hustled away by his security detail.

In the USA, it's a mixed bag. You can voice your First Amendment rights about the US President, but threaten him and you get a serious criminal charge.

So "crime" is comparing apples and bicycles. Interesting but useless.

 

[jt512]

When someone says the Western World, I consider them to be talking about all the countries that make up Australasia, Europe, and the Americas... like is says in link provided.

"The Western world, also known as the West, primarily refers to various nations and states in the regions of Australasia, Europe, and the Americas."​

In case you hadn't noticed, every country I listed is in "Australasia, Europe, and the Americas" with the exception of South Africa and Nambia, which are developed countries not in the Orient.

In case you hadn't comprehended, despite my clear explanation, try rereading my last response to you and clicking again on the link therein to see common the definition of "Western world" that I was using. Then compare that to your list of countries. If you still don't understand, repeat the exercise until you do, or just persist in your confusion. Either way, this is my last response to you on this matter.

 

[jt512]

As in, "Yes, all modern countries have crimes, some of which are terrible such as murder, rape and arson."

Which I pointed out is such a broad description of such diverse acts that it could encompass almost anything.

Why are you arguing with me about it? It was what Herc and Arth were discussion, and I was just responding to that. Your argument is with them, not me.

 

[smartcooky]

One reason why the UK has so few gun deaths;

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news...s-jailed-for-shooting-attempted-bike-thieves/

"Armed vigilante brothers jailed for over 40 years after shooting at motorcycle thieves"

The actual sentences are 30 and 14 years, of which 20 and 9 are served in prison before they can apply for parole and the rest is on licence, so they can be sent back to prison on mere suspicion they have breached the licence conditions. The older brother will be 75 years old before he completes his sentence.

The exact opposite result in this country, and we have a similar rate of deaths per capita as the UK. To be clear, in New Zealand there is no right to bear arms, no castle doctrine, no stand-your-ground law and self-defense is not not a valid reason to get a firearms license, and yet...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/farmer-cleared-of-shooting-intruder/PLY2BX7WGE2GTGJ6HRB72OJKIA/

This was a high profile case at the time, and in this case, the judge made a directed verdict, telling the jury they must find the defendant not-guilty.

The fact remains that in all the cases in this country similar to this, it is exceedingly rare for the Crown to gain a conviction. The defendant will always choose a jury trial, and it is often said that no jury in NZ would convict a person for shooting someone caught in the act of stealing the person's property. Defense counsel will always argue to the jury that if the thieves had not been trespassing and in the act of stealing the defendant's property, they would not have been shot at. It will almost always be the case that at least a couple of jurors will sympathize with that view, and will judge the thieves rather than the defendant. For this reason, the CP generally do not prosecute such cases, because they know its a lost cause.

[ASIDE]
So, why did the judge give a directed verdict? Simple really, he read the jury like a book and realized they were going to bring in a not-guilty verdict. If he left it to the jury and they did bring in a not guilty verdict, there would be no appeal allowed, but by directing the verdict himself, that would allow the crown to appeal his decision.

 

[smartcooky]

In case you hadn't comprehended, despite my clear explanation, try rereading my last response to you and clicking again on the link therein to see common the definition of "Western world" that I was using. Then compare that to your list of countries. If you still don't understand, repeat the exercise until you do, or just persist in your confusion.

Oh, I understood your so-called "explanation" perfectly. I just disagreed with what you were saying.

Either way, this is my last response to you on this matter.

Good.

 

[Donal]

I am from a not-very-gunny place, so it is possible that I am missing some nuance here, but I am having trouble understanding this.

Why would "gang violence or crime" related shooting events resulting in 4+ deaths not be mass-shootings?

It lets the people at the scene (ie police) play with the stats.

Is a mass-shooting not, by definition, an act of "criminal violence"?

A "stricter more discriminating definition of 4+ people killed" would include "gang violence or crime", would it not? And if not, what reasoning makes these not mass-shootings (aside from what appears to be an attempt to fudge the numbers)?

It is all about fudging the numbers. Once you accept "all lives matter" is a lie you see the picture clearly. If 2 or more guys fitting a description are on the same block, that can be called a gang, irrespective if they had ever even met before.

 

[smartcooky]

It is all about fudging the numbers. Once you accept "all lives matter" is a lie you see the picture clearly. If 2 or more guys fitting a description are on the same block, that can be called a gang, irrespective if they had ever even met before.

... and usually if that description includes a skin colour other white. Otherwise, they're just good ol' boys.