3 Cops Shot In Another Senseless Shooting

Link [sacbee.com]to yet more data that despite dramatically increasing gun sales, violent crimes are down.

Quote : Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data. Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General's office. During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health. Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show. Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime. The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/...rylink=cpy

Quote from Grinner : The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are very happy that weapons are banned...it's no coincidence that the last school gun massacre was the one that prompted the handgun ban and that since Hungerford, no mass killings have occurred involving automatic weapons.

In the U.S. we had multiple mass shootings during the AWB. Our violent crime rates have dropped since its expiration despite soaring gun sales. Since 1950, all but one mass shooting in the U.S. occurred where guns are banned.

Simply put, in the U.S., banning inanimate objects doesn't work. Prohibition led to organized crime, gang violence, and the first federal gun control law. The war on drugs has failed miserably and is largely related to the bulk of the firearm-related deaths in the gang violence demographic.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : Link [sacbee.com]to yet more data that despite dramatically increasing gun sales, violent crimes are down.

Yup. This is straight from this morning's Drudge Report.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranks California first with an 81 out 100 score. It has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It recently enacted open carry bans. It also has an assault weapons control act. Let's hope other states follow this model if the federal government is unwilling to act.

Quote from Grinner : Haha...Elmer lying about UK gun violence and crime stats as usual.

Please link to one "lie".

Quote from Grinner : I schooled you on why you were wrong about this years ago but you don't seem to have learned your lesson.

For you to have "schooled me", and I "learned my lesson" you would have actually have to know something factual, and stated it, instead of your usual political rhetoric.

Quote from Grinner : I also know UK cops...

I'm sure. Though probably met under different circumstances than the ones I know.

Wink wink, nod nod..... say no more, say no more....

Quote from Grinner : He would laugh at your claims that they all want to be armed...as would most other PCs.

I would too, if I had made any such claims.

Quote from Grinner : The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are very happy that weapons are banned...

Yes, I'm aware of those surveys. But the Brits really haven't had much of a culture of self defense for many generations. They can, and are prosecuted for hurting an intruder in their own home.

On the other hand, with Britain's press, and their history of cooking data and statistics, who knows what the public really thinks there.....

Quote from Grinner : it's no coincidence that the last school gun massacre was the one that prompted the handgun ban and that since Hungerford, no mass killings have occurred involving automatic weapons.

Nope. No coincidence at all. Britain has had always had a low incident of gun violence, both before and after their gun bans. School massacre's and mass killings with firearms were never common, (not that they are in this country). Mass killings weren't common in Norway either.

England will have more mass killings, even though, unlike in the US, anti gun folks aren't wishing for more of them.

Quote from Grinner : Why do you keep lying about the UK?

Why do you keep making false and slanderous posts?

There are far more armed police officers in England today than 20 years ago, which is what I claimed. That's a fact. Unless you think the Prime Minister was also "lying" when he addressed the issue of the two Constables shot and grenaded to death in September....

Quote : Pressed on the issue David Cameron said: "Well it certainly reminds us, it's a shocking reminder of what the police do on our behalf. "There are more armed police officers, there are more armed response units. But this was supposed to be the response to a domestic burglary and that wouldn't normally require armed officers.”

In the past, there were no roving gun squads driving around. Guns were kept under lock and key in the stations, with permission from top supervisors needed to bring them out. My friends tell of waiting an hour or more for permission to unlock them, during dangerous incidents with armed criminals. That's being changed. And there will be more armed police in Britain in the coming years, despite any objections from police associations, (who are mainly afraid of the increased liability to their members), politicians, the press, and the irrational.

Quote from Grinner : Haha...Elmer lying about UK gun violence and crime stats as usual. I schooled you on why you were wrong about this years ago but you don't seem to have learned your lesson. I also know UK cops...one of whom went through training with one of the WPC's killed in the case you referred to. He would laugh at your claims that they all want to be armed...as would most other PCs. The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are very happy that weapons are banned...it's no coincidence that the last school gun massacre was the one that prompted the handgun ban and that since Hungerford, no mass killings have occurred involving automatic weapons. Why do you keep lying about the UK?

I don't think the term lying is appropriate if you aren't clear on why his stats are incorrect. Also, I'm pretty sure Automatic guns (ie machine guns) have been hard to get in England for many many many years.

Quote from Grinner : Haha...Elmer lying about UK gun violence and crime stats as usual. I schooled you on why you were wrong about this years ago but you don't seem to have learned your lesson. I also know UK cops...one of whom went through training with one of the WPC's killed in the case you referred to. He would laugh at your claims that they all want to be armed...as would most other PCs. The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are very happy that weapons are banned...it's no coincidence that the last school gun massacre was the one that prompted the handgun ban and that since Hungerford, no mass killings have occurred involving automatic weapons. Why do you keep lying about the UK?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/u...urope.html

Quote : UK is violent crime capital of Europe The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.

now I've done a decent amount of reading on the UK over time now. I'm speaking from memory so not to be taken word for word. The UK not only has an issue with crime they have an issue with crimes reported. In general their society feels the police will not be of assistance. So much so they don't even report the majority of their crimes. This is so clear and apparent that when they do their crime statistics.. they have to actually call random people and about crimes possibly committed against them. Why? because the police statistics as to what is reported and what actually has occurred as so far apart. How effective is their police if the own government has to call random people because so many people don't call the police? Another issue is you have a be a certain age to even be counted. Meaning say a 15yr is stabbed.. well he doesn't count because the reporting doesn't examine people that age and younger. Their whole system only looks pretty to those that aren't in it.

But again this is a county so worried no about stabbings they don't allow boyscouts to use pocket knives anymore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog...knives-ban

Quote : Scouts told not to carry knives It's an example of "anti-knife hysteria", according to Knife Rights, the blade equivalent of the gun lobby in America

Quote from onscreen : I don't think the term lying is appropriate if you aren't clear on why his stats are incorrect. .

Calling someone a "liar", seems to have become popular among a few folks here, who disagree with another poster, but can't substantiate why.....

Not something they do with random people they meet in person, I'm quite sure......

Quote from bobo_saan : If the prevalence of guns causes violence then the availability of forks causes obesity.

Here is an argument. Consider these:

1a. If we remove escalators people will not go to higher floors.
1b. If we remove escalators people will lose more calories.

2.a If we take away the remote, people do not watch TVs anymore.
2.b If we take away the remote, people will lose more calories.

No one is making the a-type arguments. The arguments about availability of guns are of the b-type.
Not many knowledgeable and serious anti-gun people claim that guns "cause" violence. They claims guns makes violence more likely and more deadly and more efficient.

Quote from TRNT : Here is an argument. Consider these: 1a. If we remove escalators people will not go to higher floors. 1b. If we remove escalators people will lose more calories. 2.a If we take away the remote, people do not watch TVs anymore. 2.b If we take away the remote, people will lose more calories. No one is making the a-type arguments. The arguments about availability of guns are of the b-type. Not many knowledgeable and serious anti-gun people claim that guns "cause" violence. They claims guns makes violence more likely and more deadly and more efficient.

In reality we would expect in each of your answers some balance between a and b.. But we also need to assume a level of "c".

Did you read the link I posted for you and others in the Feinstein thread? I understand it was long but it had a section on self defense use which I will quote:

Quote : So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders. But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad. So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive.

So to continue the a-b-c's. In your TV example we would have to assume an answer "C" a long the lines of we have more TVs in every room. In the case of crime we would have to assume that since the most effective means of self defense has been removed that there would be more attacks since part of the balance a crook considers is "can I get away with it?" The crook doesn't was any more risk that necessary. Removing guns used in self defense removes risk for the crooks.

Quote from onscreen : In reality we would expect in each of your answers some balance between a and b.. But we also need to assume a level of "c". Did you read the link I posted for you and others in the Feinstein thread? I understand it was long but it had a section on self defense use which I will quote: So to continue the a-b-c's. In your TV example we would have to assume an answer "C" a long the lines of we have more TVs in every room. In the case of crime we would have to assume that since the most effective means of self defense has been removed that there would be more attacks since part of the balance a crook considers is "can I get away with it?" The crook doesn't was any more risk that necessary. Removing guns used in self defense removes risk for the crooks.

i am willing to stipulate even agree to your c but that does not affect the fact that most reasonable pro gun-ban people argue b's and not a's.

Quote from TRNT : i am willing to stipulate even agree to your c but that does not affect the fact that most reasonable pro gun-ban people argue b's and not a's.

Can you define "most" or provide good examples? Can you show this isn't just your perception of the subject?

Quote from onscreen : Can you define "most" or provide good examples? Can you show this isn't just your perception of the subject?

it is just my perception based on my life experience.

Quote from TRNT : it is just my perception based on my life experience.

My perception is more people are killed in mass shootings than by lightning each year. This is based on my life experience and gathering information from CNN and the like.

It turns out my perception is incorrect.

Quote : Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar. Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

This is from a link I used in another thread. I would suggest you read it if nothing else so you can be informed as to why rational people may not agree with your POV.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.c...-tell-you/

Quote from onscreen : My perception is more people are killed in mass shootings than by lightning each year. This is based on my life experience and gathering information from CNN and the like. It turns out my perception is incorrect.

how is that related to whether or not my perception was incorrect.

clearly some perceptions are incorrect.