Whats going on in Chicago?

[Chromosome47]

Didn't BrianFantana get eviscerated in OT then banned? Why is he back from the grave spewing shit about Australia and how cool it is over there.

 

[spamking]

I wonder whose gimmick BrianFantana is. Just started posting here despite being a member since 06...

I've thought that myself . . .

 

[oldshadow]

It's a government policy. A policy cannot be "overturned" by a court unless there is a test case brought that challenges the legislation on constitutional grounds. Even then, if a case was successful, the policy would be ruled of no force and effect, not vacated or overturned.

I understand but that never happened, so if they increased the penalty it looks like it would be the same as the Supreme Court has upheld it in other cases.

 

[BrianFantana]

I understand but that never happened, so if they increased the penalty it looks like it would be the same as the Supreme Court has upheld it in other cases.

It's not about the penalty. It's a question of whether someone can be sentenced to jail time without the right to make a defence. That's the problem. Increasing the penalty makes it worse, not better.

You have to remember, the people that were primarily afoul of this project were poor. Poor people overwhelmingly rely on self-representation or public defenders.

Honest question: would you, in your present capacities, know how to lodge a constitutional challenge against a policy implemented by executive order?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

no he probably doesn't...

he could simply not break the law though, and never be in that situation in the first place

I think Project Exile was a good thing, I say do it more.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Oh, I know what the idea is. The idea hasn't worked for two centuries, but they keep clinging to the notion it will work. The US has over 300 million guns, and the highest rate of gun violence anywhere in the world. The guns aren't protecting anyone to any significant degree.

But everyone knows that. They may be less familiar with what happened in Australia, after strict gun law reform was introduced in 1996 following a string of mass shootings: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362.

Two is a pretty short string.
There were two mass shootings. One just happened to be the worst ever in the country - an anomaly.

Following the enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016.

This is true. But there were just as many massacres in the years following the gun reform as there were in the years preceding it (actually, I think there may have been fewer actual massacres, but more people killed). As one might suspect, they simply were not mass firearm killings. People found other, sometimes more effective, murder weapons.

There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997, but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.

So, the question is, did people became less violent in general, or did they kill each other and themselves less - even without guns - because of firearm reforms?
There were (and are) still the anomalous nutters after the reforms and, predictably, they find other ways to kill - also, predictably, those other ways are often far more effective implements of mass slaughter than guns.

I actually saw an article on HuffPo once trying to use to Australian example (a pretty popular one, in fact), though their stats were taken directly from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It was pretty laughable because as I recall, according to those stats, other than a brief increase in gun-related deaths, the reform had no noticeable impact on the trend of decreasing violence that preceded it. Actually, I think the suicide rate was also pretty much the same, people just moved over to gassing/hanging themselves more often.

my memory on it is pretty fuzzy though (lots of numbers, years of statistics and all that). But if you start from the 1993 records, you'll get stats for some things going all the way back to the 70s.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected] Issues&prodno=3303.0&issue=2015&num=&view=&



I think the conclusion I came to was that when thousands of your citizens have the urge to kill each other, the problem is not the tool they're using, the problem is that thousands of your citizens want to kill each other.

Even if your conclusion were accurate, and removing guns somehow also magically reduced the urge to kill, you can't look at Australia and compare it to America without asking how much were people actually shooting each other before gun reforms?
Not much, as it turns out. And those mass killings that catalyzed the gun reforms in the first place? That situation remained pretty unchanged in every way but the actual method of murder.

There wasn't a particularly drastic decline, and a similar decline in America would go unnoticed, because it would probably dovetail with the decline that I imagine the nation is already experiencing (I'm not really sure, offhand) outside of a few problem areas.
Maybe guns exacerbate or enable an underlying problem.

 

[BrianFantana]

Didn't BrianFantana get eviscerated in OT then banned? Why is he back from the grave spewing shit about Australia and how cool it is over there.

You are misinformed.

 

[BrianFantana]

I've thought that myself . . .

Hilarious. You "thought".

 

[BrianFantana]

Two is a pretty short string.
There were two mass shootings. One just happened to be the worst ever in the country - an anomaly.



This is true. But there were just as many massacres in the years following the gun reform as there were in the years preceding it (actually, I think there may have been fewer actual massacres, but more people killed). As one might suspect, they simply were not mass firearm killings. People found other, sometimes more effective, murder weapons.





So, the question is, did people became less violent in general, or did they kill each other and themselves less - even without guns - because of firearm reforms?
There were (and are) still the anomalous nutters after the reforms and, predictably, they find other ways to kill - also, predictably, those other ways are often far more effective implements of mass slaughter than guns.

I actually saw an article on HuffPo once trying to use to Australian example (a pretty popular one, in fact), though their stats were taken directly from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It was pretty laughable because as I recall, according to those stats, other than a brief increase in gun-related deaths, the reform had no noticeable impact on the trend of decreasing violence that preceded it. Actually, I think the suicide rate was also pretty much the same, people just moved over to gassing/hanging themselves more often.

my memory on it is pretty fuzzy though (lots of numbers, years of statistics and all that). But if you start from the 1993 records, you'll get stats for some things going all the way back to the 70s.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/second+level+view?ReadForm&prodno=3303.0&viewtitle=Causes of Death, Australia~2015~Latest~28/09/2016&&tabname=Past Future Issues&prodno=3303.0&issue=2015&num=&view=&



I think the conclusion I came to was that when thousands of your citizens have the urge to kill each other, the problem is not the tool they're using, the problem is that thousands of your citizens want to kill each other.

Even if your conclusion were accurate, and removing guns somehow also magically reduced the urge to kill, you can't look at Australia and compare it to America without asking how much were people actually shooting each other before gun reforms?
Not much, as it turns out. And those mass killings that catalyzed the gun reforms in the first place? That situation remained pretty unchanged in every way but the actual method of murder.

There wasn't a particularly drastic decline, and a similar decline in America would go unnoticed, because it would probably dovetail with the decline that I imagine the nation is already experiencing (I'm not really sure, offhand) outside of a few problem areas.
Maybe guns exacerbate or enable an underlying problem.

And here I provided the links to no less than a dozen other studies that address the very questions you have posed, in this very thread. What a time to be alive. And to read!

 

[PrinceOfPain]

And here I provided the links to no less than a dozen other studies that address the very questions you have posed, in this very thread. What a time to be alive. And to read!

I guess my point was: primary sources?

 

[BrianFantana]

I guess my point was: primary sources?

I'm not a Ph.D. I rely on people with those credentials to interpret the data. Here's the rest, in case you didn't come across it:

Ok, let's look at the facts, shall we:

1. Guns are used in self-defence in approximately 0.9% of gun victimization crimes (in a study of 14,000 gun crimes): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
2. The number of guns present does not affect overall crime rate. However, the prevalence of gun ownership does correlate directly with the violent crime rate: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics; https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/1#v; https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
3. The rate of gun ownership correlates with an increase of homicide of women by men: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2015.0047
4. The current system of background checks is deficient in a number of ways (the "gun show loophole" is not really a thing): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/bcft09st.pdf; https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/bcft09st.pdf
5. States with more rigorous background checks have lower rates of violent crime and gun violence: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222085810_State_background_checks_and_firearms_homicides
6. Gun buy-back programs have proved ineffective in the past: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ent_crimes/links/541d58fa0cf203f155bde894.pdf
7. Sweeping gun control measures nation-wide can have a tremendous impact on lowering rates of gun violence and violent crime: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2530362
8. The gun homicide rate in the US is 25.2x higher (2,520% higher) than the average developed country: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/pdf

Buried in there are the statistics on gun purchasing. Most gun crimes are committed by people who bought their guns not from a dealer; that doesn't mean the "black market", it means a private sale. Most guns used in crimes were initially purchased legally, then changed hands.

I encourage people to root through these for their betterment.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I'm not a Ph.D. I rely on people with those credentials to interpret the data. Here's the rest, in case you didn't come across it:

You're shifting the goalposts?
Classless, but probably a good idea.

Off you go then.

 

[BrianFantana]

You're shifting the goalposts?
Classless, but probably a good idea.

Off you go then.

I'm not shifting anything. It's a remarkably easy and frankly cheap tactic to shout "LOGICAL FALLACY" and then declare yourself victor.

The paragraph you quoted is the researchers stating they can't establish a causal relationship, only a correlation; nothing more.

Those sorts of posts like mine, with a literal dozen studies, including the links, don't just appear from the ether. It actually takes time. To be a hauty, dismissive cretin is a perfectly good way to be dismissed yourself.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I'm not shifting anything. It's a remarkably easy and frankly cheap tactic to shout "LOGICAL FALLACY" and then declare yourself victor.

I'm not declaring myself Victor. That would be a pretty unusual thing to do, seeing as my name is not Victor.

What I'm doing is pointing out that the studies you linked to in your oh-so fastidiously researched post have nothing to do with my initial response, and little to do with the post of yours that I was responding to.

I do tend to waffle at times. Maybe you're just slow? Did I lose you?

Have I read through the entire read thread? Nope. I got one page in, saw the overused Australian example, and mildly argued specifically with that. Being a dismissive cretin, you countered with a non-argument in the form of contextually near-meaningless links, chuckled into your inhaler, and considered your job done.

I skimmed through your links, and dismissed them.
Very interesting stuff, I'm sure. Maybe I'll give them a look when I have some free time, or I'm having a discussion that they're directly pertinent to.

The paragraph you quoted is the researchers stating they can't establish a causal relationship, only a correlation; nothing more.

Indeed.

Those sorts of posts like mine, with a literal dozen studies, including the links, don't just appear from the ether. It actually takes time.

Is this you not-so-subtly hinting that you're a gimmicky troll, just to see if anyone catches onto your little joke by how obviously ridiculous a thing this is to say in an online environment like this one?

To be a hauty, dismissive cretin is a perfectly good way to be dismissed yourself.

Indeed.

Enjoy whatever it is you think you're doing here.
You're dismissed.

 

[oldshadow]

It's not about the penalty. It's a question of whether someone can be sentenced to jail time without the right to make a defence. That's the problem. Increasing the penalty makes it worse, not better.

You have to remember, the people that were primarily afoul of this project were poor. Poor people overwhelmingly rely on self-representation or public defenders.

Honest question: would you, in your present capacities, know how to lodge a constitutional challenge against a policy implemented by executive order?

No I would not but l could learn how to by research.

I understand what you are saying about simple possession and intent. However I don't agree it would be grounds for overturning something like this.

There could be a way address your concerns and still put real teeth into something like this as the test program is out there and running already.

 

[BrianFantana]

I'm not declaring myself Victor. That would be a pretty unusual thing to do, seeing as my name is not Victor.

What I'm doing is pointing out that the studies you linked to in your oh-so fastidiously researched post have nothing to do with my initial response, and little to do with the post of yours that I was responding to.

I do tend to waffle at times. Maybe you're just slow? Did I lose you?

Have I read through the entire read thread? Nope. I got one page in, saw the overused Australian example, and mildly argued specifically with that. Being a dismissive cretin, you countered with a non-argument in the form of contextually near-meaningless links, chuckled into your inhaler, and considered your job done.

I skimmed through your links, and dismissed them.
Very interesting stuff, I'm sure. Maybe I'll give them a look when I have some free time, or I'm having a discussion that they're directly pertinent to.

Indeed.

Is this you not-so-subtly hinting that you're a gimmicky troll, just to see if anyone catches onto your little joke by how obviously ridiculous a thing this is to say in an online environment like this one?

Indeed.

Enjoy whatever it is you think you're doing here.
You're dismissed.

Well, you're pointing out something wrongly, as those studies relate directly to your response and the questions you pose. You haven't made the effort to find out why.

If you want to get into a flame war, head over the the OT.

And, PS.

 

[orangecuse]

Oh just George Soros BLM America.

The black puppets for this White elite cultrual Marxism who prop this up and want biter, scared helpless minorities have to be some of the most shameless sellouts on earth.

 

[BrianFantana]

No I would not but l could learn how to by research.

I understand what you are saying about simple possession and intent. However I don't agree it would be grounds for overturning something like this.

There could be a way address your concerns and still put real teeth into something like this as the test program is out there and running already.

You could! You could go to law school and get a J.D.; that's 3 years. Then you could do your LL.M. in constitutional law, that's 1 more unless there's any delay in booking your defence. Then, you can write the bar, and depending on the jurisdiction, article for a year, and BAM! you're a lawyer with the know-how and ability to do it in only 5 years (with no practice experience, mind you).

I get this feeling like people don't necessarily understand or appreciate how intensive it is to do these things. There's an assumption one can read a book or an article and gain the knowledge and experience of an expert in a few hours. It's curious.

 

[oldshadow]

You could! You could go to law school and get a J.D.; that's 3 years. Then you could do your LL.M. in constitutional law, that's 1 more unless there's any delay in booking your defence. Then, you can write the bar, and depending on the jurisdiction, article for a year, and BAM! you're a lawyer with the know-how and ability to do it in only 5 years (with no practice experience, mind you).

I get this feeling like people don't necessarily understand or appreciate how intensive it is to do these things. There's an assumption one can read a book or an article and gain the knowledge and experience of an expert in a few hours. It's curious.

I'm not saying that I would need a law degree and I would not to know the process. I spent my life at work in the nuclear world researching regulations and manuals. I can research.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.

I understand the points you were trying to make but the law is already out there and has stood up. It's a federal law the city and states were taking dvantage of. All that is required is to add more teeth to the federal law.

 

[BrianFantana]

I'm not saying that I would need a law degree and I would not to know the process. I spent my life at work in the nuclear world researching regulations and manuals. I can research.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.

I understand the points you were trying to make but the law is already out there and has stood up. It's a federal law the city and states were taking dvantage of. All that is required is to add more teeth to the federal law.

If it hasn't been challenged, it hasn't stood up to anything. And what federal law are you talking about?