Tragic shooting in San Bernardino

[peppy]

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

Dance statistics....dance...

We?ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here?s why.

In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 ? a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

With record gun sales in this country, statistical gun violence has actually declined.  It reminds me of the global warming crowd as we have been pumping record amounts of CO2 in to the atmosphere but global temperatures haven't moved in 19 years...but that's another thread.

 

[Happiness]

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.

Politicians are not stupid.  You can call it "lack of guts" but they are in fact making a rational political calculation of what is in their best interest.

Because politicians will act in their best interest, there is no democratic way of banning guns in the US given the demographics of the country.  The only way for gun control advocates to succeed is through non-democratic ways such as using the courts to ban guns by stacking SCOTUS with justices sympatric to their cause.

 

[eyephone]

FYI - US law enforcement links the girl to the terror group.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.

Politicians are not stupid.  You can call it "lack of guts" but they are in fact making a rational political calculation of what is in their best interest.

Because politicians will act in their best interest, there is no democratic way of banning guns in the US given the demographics of the country.  The only way for gun control advocates to succeed is through non-democratic ways such as using the courts to ban guns by stacking SCOTUS with justices sympatric to their cause.

Again...lack of political guts.  That's why it needs to be something that the citizens fight for.  No more this "what can we do..."  That's a ridiculous sentiment, think about if we did that with 2nd hand smoke, pollution, etc.

 

[morekaos]

Dance girl, dance...

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted a sweeping package of gun restrictions far more ambitious than anything plausible here -- including a total ban on semiautomatic weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. John Howard, who was prime minister at the time, wrote the other day that his country "is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.

Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.

We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/opinion/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Number of guns owned has gone up...but actual gun ownership rates have gone down.  Fewer gun owners...the ones who own guns just own more of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Nope:

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post?s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here?s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn?t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper?s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia?s more-restrictive laws didn?t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, ?it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

Also, UK:

Statistics, however, suggest that the gun bans alone did not have an immediate impact on firearm-related crime. Over time, however, gun violence in virtually all its guises has significantly come down with the aid of stricter enforcement and waves of police anti-weapons operations. The most current statistics available show that firearms were used to kill 59 people in all of England and Wales in 2011, compared with 77 such homicides that same year in Washington, D.C., alone.

?What we have in the U.K. now are significantly lower levels of gun crime, levels that continue to fall today,? said Andy Marsh, firearms director at Britain?s Association of Chief Police Officers. ?People say you can?t unwind hundreds of years of gun history and culture [in America], but here in the U.K., we?ve learned from our tragedies and taken steps to reduce the likelihood of them ever happening again.?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4d20c0-6a15-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_story.html

Keep trying...you are the one dancing with stats. 

 

[Happiness]

Historically, mass shootings and the election of Democratic Party presidents increases the stock price of gun manufacturers.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Historically, mass shootings and the election of Democratic Party presidents increases the stock price of gun manufacturers.

Sure...paranoid people are not rational.

 

[eyephone]

Historically, mass shootings and the election of Democratic Party presidents increases the stock price of gun manufacturers.

This is not a random work place issue. This is an act of terrorism.

 

[peppy]

Why not both?

Historically, mass shootings and the election of Democratic Party presidents increases the stock price of gun manufacturers.

This is not a random work place issue. This is an act of terrorism.

 

[riznick]

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.

Politicians are not stupid.  You can call it "lack of guts" but they are in fact making a rational political calculation of what is in their best interest.

Because politicians will act in their best interest, there is no democratic way of banning guns in the US given the demographics of the country.  The only way for gun control advocates to succeed is through non-democratic ways such as using the courts to ban guns by stacking SCOTUS with justices sympatric to their cause.

Again...lack of political guts.  That's why it needs to be something that the citizens fight for.  No more this "what can we do..."  That's a ridiculous sentiment, think about if we did that with 2nd hand smoke, pollution, etc.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voter base.  It sounds good when it's a cause you support, but it is wrong for a politician to go against his voter base.

 

[jmoney74]

Why not both?

Historically, mass shootings and the election of Democratic Party presidents increases the stock price of gun manufacturers.

This is not a random work place issue. This is an act of terrorism.

When do these cooks ever have a work issue.. go back.. and get their wives to come blast people too?  lol..  terrorist 100%.  Obama can't admit it.

 

[peppy]

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.

Politicians are not stupid.  You can call it "lack of guts" but they are in fact making a rational political calculation of what is in their best interest.

Because politicians will act in their best interest, there is no democratic way of banning guns in the US given the demographics of the country.  The only way for gun control advocates to succeed is through non-democratic ways such as using the courts to ban guns by stacking SCOTUS with justices sympatric to their cause.

Again...lack of political guts.  That's why it needs to be something that the citizens fight for.  No more this "what can we do..."  That's a ridiculous sentiment, think about if we did that with 2nd hand smoke, pollution, etc.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voter base.  It sounds good when it's a cause you support, but it is wrong for a politician to go against his voter base.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voterdonor base.

 

[jmoney74]

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.

Politicians are not stupid.  You can call it "lack of guts" but they are in fact making a rational political calculation of what is in their best interest.

Because politicians will act in their best interest, there is no democratic way of banning guns in the US given the demographics of the country.  The only way for gun control advocates to succeed is through non-democratic ways such as using the courts to ban guns by stacking SCOTUS with justices sympatric to their cause.

Again...lack of political guts.  That's why it needs to be something that the citizens fight for.  No more this "what can we do..."  That's a ridiculous sentiment, think about if we did that with 2nd hand smoke, pollution, etc.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voter base.  It sounds good when it's a cause you support, but it is wrong for a politician to go against his voter base.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voterdonor base.

official
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

 

[eyephone]

It's not a conundrum...it's a lack of guts/will and pandering.

Politicians are not stupid.  You can call it "lack of guts" but they are in fact making a rational political calculation of what is in their best interest.

Because politicians will act in their best interest, there is no democratic way of banning guns in the US given the demographics of the country.  The only way for gun control advocates to succeed is through non-democratic ways such as using the courts to ban guns by stacking SCOTUS with justices sympatric to their cause.

Again...lack of political guts.  That's why it needs to be something that the citizens fight for.  No more this "what can we do..."  That's a ridiculous sentiment, think about if we did that with 2nd hand smoke, pollution, etc.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voter base.  It sounds good when it's a cause you support, but it is wrong for a politician to go against his voter base.

By political guts, you mean violating your representative position in office and going against your voterdonor base.

official
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Yup - I previously said that earlier.

 

[lnc]

FYI - US law enforcement links the girl to the terror group.

Let's just hope this doesn't reinforce female Muslim terrorist stereotype.

 

[eyephone]

FYI - US law enforcement links the girl to the terror group.

Let's just hope this doesn't reinforce female Muslim terrorist stereotype.

Regarding the image you posted. If that person is scared of his wife, they shouldn't be married. Bottom-line

 

[morekaos]

"Apparently, they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," the president said

Turns out we should be

 

[Happiness]

"Apparently, they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," the president said

Turns out we should be

Most Muslim suicide bombers in Russia are women, they tend to be the widows of killed Chechen fighters.  They believe it is their duty to their martyred husbands and it is easier for a woman to conceal an explosive than a man.