• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

Phys251 said:
Because of Europe's lower homicide rates? Why do they have such lower homicide rates across the pond, Turtle?
Click to expand...

they have long before they started banning guns (in some countries) in other countries, the elite used to kill commoners who owned weapons.


its the sign of someone who completely refuses to understand reality if they want to compare a country were most people could NEVER own firearms with one that was founded upon the idea that every free man should be armed
 
Rucker61 said:
Why have they always had such lower homicide rates, even when firearms were more common and less restricted?
Click to expand...

If you are referring to any time period except the last decade or so, then that point is irrelevant. We are talking about the here and now.
 
Phys251 said:
Okay. Since you're the ones proposing this, how do we go about doing that?



As I've said before, we need a LOT more enforcement against straw purchases.
Click to expand...

How do you do that? get the mope caught with an illegal gun to rat out who gave it to him? that doesn't require any new laws. and yes that should happen.
 
TurtleDude said:
they have long before they started banning guns (in some countries) in other countries, the elite used to kill commoners who owned weapons.

its the sign of someone who completely refuses to understand reality if they want to compare a country were most people could NEVER own firearms with one that was founded upon the idea that every free man should be armed
Click to expand...

That does not answer the question. Why does Europe--western Europe in particular--have such low homicide rates as compared to us?
 
Phys251 said:
That does not answer the question. Why does Europe--western Europe in particular--have such low homicide rates as compared to us?
Click to expand...

why did they have so much lower rates of ALL homicides (knives, clubs, kung fu fighting, garrotes, baseball bats, ice picks, petrol bombs, chainsaws etc)
 
TurtleDude said:
why did they have so much lower rates of ALL homicides (knives, clubs, kung fu fighting, garrotes, baseball bats, ice picks, petrol bombs, chainsaws etc)
Click to expand...

Well now you're broadening the discussion to one beyond the method of killing. Look, poverty begets crime, period. If we're serious about tackling violent crime, we'll actually tackle poverty with full force instead of half-assing it. The Guardian did an incredible piece recently that documents how not just the federal and state, but even the city and county homicide rates miss the bigger picture: Homicides disproportionately strike in impoverished areas. That's one of several reason that, I believe, sociologists are starting to model gun violence as if it were an infectious disease and empowering local and state authorities to do whatever they can to stop the spread of that disease.
 
Phys251 said:
Well now you're broadening the discussion to one beyond the method of killing. Look, poverty begets crime, period. If we're serious about tackling violent crime, we'll actually tackle poverty with full force instead of half-assing it. The Guardian did an incredible piece recently that documents how not just the federal and state, but even the city and county homicide rates miss the bigger picture: Homicides disproportionately strike in impoverished areas. That's one of several reason that, I believe, sociologists are starting to model gun violence as if it were an infectious disease and empowering local and state authorities to do whatever they can to stop the spread of that disease.
Click to expand...

left wing gun banners want to do that because they think low IQ or low information voters will be more willing to accept their anti gun rights nonsense if its called "health" just like Bannerrhoid organizations call their gun ban schemes- Gun safety

it doesnt' fool anyone who is objective and informed. honest people owning firearms is not a disease nor is the fact that most of us vote against Democratic politicians: which is what really bothers most gun banners
 
Rucker61 said:
It's not irrelevant. The US has always been much more murderous than the UK. A century ago we had 8 times the homicide rate. Now it's only 5 times the homicide rate. That can't be explained by wonderful, new, restrictive gun laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade
Click to expand...

Perhaps that goes to the point I just made to Turtle, and that is that homicides can be modeled as an infectious disease. Seems that we've had this disease worse than the UK for quite awhile.

I wonder when we'll have the political will to step up to the plate and start to bring it down to levels such as those as Singapore, Norway, Italy, etc.?
 
Phys251 said:
Well now you're broadening the discussion to one beyond the method of killing. Look, poverty begets crime, period. If we're serious about tackling violent crime, we'll actually tackle poverty with full force instead of half-assing it. The Guardian did an incredible piece recently that documents how not just the federal and state, but even the city and county homicide rates miss the bigger picture: Homicides disproportionately strike in impoverished areas. That's one of several reason that, I believe, sociologists are starting to model gun violence as if it were an infectious disease and empowering local and state authorities to do whatever they can to stop the spread of that disease.
Click to expand...

Why is gun violence any different than other violence?
 
Phys251 said:
Perhaps that goes to the point I just made to Turtle, and that is that homicides can be modeled as an infectious disease. Seems that we've had this disease worse than the UK for quite awhile.

I wonder when we'll have the political will to step up to the plate and start to bring it down to levels such as those as Singapore, Norway, Italy, etc.?
Click to expand...

Poverty? Good question. How do you fight poverty?

PS: your message to TD was specifically about "gun violence". Are you now acknowledging that all violence has the same root causes?
 
TurtleDude said:
left wing gun banners want to do that because they think low IQ or low information voters will be more willing to accept their anti gun rights nonsense if its called "health" just like Bannerrhoid organizations call their gun ban schemes- Gun safety
Click to expand...

Turtle, what are you talking about?? I'm not making this stuff up. Sociologists are realizing that infectious disease models work surprisingly well for modelling the spread and treatment of gun violence. Or do you deny this?

it doesnt' fool anyone who is objective and informed. honest people owning firearms is not a disease nor is the fact that most of us vote against Democratic politicians: which is what really bothers most gun banners
Click to expand...

OK I think I see your concern here: By "modeling gun violence as an infectious disease," I don't mean describing this way rhetorically but mathematically. This sort of thing happens all the time in the scientific research world. For example, the exact same laws of physics that apply to ordinary driving apply to racecar driving, although the parameters in the models might be very different (particularly velocity!). Does that make sense?
 
Rucker61 said:
Why is gun violence any different than other violence?
Click to expand...

Tactics, duh. Why do you think that mass stabbings almost always result in multiple people being wounded, whereas mass shootings almost always result in multiple people being killed?

Rucker61 said:
Poverty? Good question. How do you fight poverty?

PS: your message to TD was specifically about "gun violence". Are you now acknowledging that all violence has the same root causes?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that poverty was THE cause of violence, but this and easy access to guns are probably the biggest driving factors.
 
Phys251 said:
Turtle, what are you talking about?? I'm not making this stuff up. Sociologists are realizing that infectious disease models work surprisingly well for modelling the spread and treatment of gun violence. Or do you deny this?



OK I think I see your concern here: By "modeling gun violence as an infectious disease," I don't mean describing this way rhetorically but mathematically. This sort of thing happens all the time in the scientific research world. For example, the exact same laws of physics that apply to ordinary driving apply to racecar driving, although the parameters in the models might be very different (particularly velocity!). Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Something like this?

"The study examined Chicago police data from from 138,163 individuals who were arrested between 2006 and 2014, nearly 10,000 of whom were also victims of gun violence. The demographics: 75 percent of those individuals were black, 82 percent were men, and 26 percent were part of a gang. On average, they were 27 years old at the midpoint of the study."

"“Say you and I are friends and I’ve just been shot and we’re hanging out. By spending time with me, you’re now being exposed to the risk factors that led to me being shot,” said Ben Green, coauthor of the new paper and an applied mathematician at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Time was also a factor. Individuals were more susceptible to gun violence immediately after an associate they’d co-offended with was shot. On average, victims were shot 125 days after their “infector” fell prey to gun violence.

“It’s the same thing with getting a cold. You’re less susceptible the longer it’s been since you were exposed,” Green said."

'The research raises a key question: How can communities rein in the epidemic of gun violence?

“Given that we’re able to identify individuals at high risk, that presents an opportunity to target those individuals for social services,” Green said. He listed mental health, educational, and housing services, along with job training, as potential ways to interrupt the risks.

But Branas argued people aren’t necessarily the only target.

“We should think heavily about places, and how we might change places to interrupt gun violence as a disease,” he said. That includes cleaning up neighborhoods and revamping abandoned buildings and vacant lots. Previous controlled trials have shown that fixing up run-down neighborhoods has been successful in reducing violence in cities such as New Orleans."

Gun violence spreads like an infectious disease, new research finds | PBS NewsHour

How is this news? We've known for some time that being a violent criminal and associating with violent criminals is risky behavior.
 
Phys251 said:
Turtle, what are you talking about?? I'm not making this stuff up. Sociologists are realizing that infectious disease models work surprisingly well for modelling the spread and treatment of gun violence. Or do you deny this?



OK I think I see your concern here: By "modeling gun violence as an infectious disease," I don't mean describing this way rhetorically but mathematically. This sort of thing happens all the time in the scientific research world. For example, the exact same laws of physics that apply to ordinary driving apply to racecar driving, although the parameters in the models might be very different (particularly velocity!). Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

I understand why they do that but its invariabely by gun banners.
 
I don't think the founding fathers were talking about stun guns, which aren't really guns, when they wrote the second amendment to the constitution.
 
It might be because these type of weapons aren't always as non-lethal as people think. Even policemen who are trained to use them have killed people with them.
 
independentusa said:
It might be because these type of weapons aren't always as non-lethal as people think. Even policemen who are trained to use them have killed people with them.
Click to expand...

where did the government get the proper power to ban them?
 
TurtleDude said:
using a taser against someone who doesn't present to you a reasonable believe that the attacker may cause you severe bodily harm is probably going to be ruled illegal (cops have some leeway in demanding compliance that they can enforce with non lethal means such as tasers or mace-stuff that private citizens cannot do. I for example-cannot mace someone for refusing to leave my front yard but a cop can after he orders the guy to leave and he doesnt)

If you use a taser against someone who does present that reasonable chance of killing or maiming you, you might well die. cops are taught that if someone threatens you with an instrument that they can kill you with, the PROPER response is your firearm. if a perp threatens you with a club, a knife, a sword or a firearm, you use your firearm.
Click to expand...

I would rather empty all 19 rounds and let the insurance company pay for the clean up.
 
TurtleDude said:
I understand why they do that but its invariabely by gun banners.
Click to expand...

Humans can choose whatever rhetoric they like, but numbers don't lie. As many policy decisions as possible need to be driven by the numbers that most nearly and comprehensively reflect the reality of the applicable situation.
 
Phys251 said:
Humans can choose whatever rhetoric they like, but numbers don't lie. As many policy decisions as possible need to be driven by the numbers that most nearly and comprehensively reflect the reality of the applicable situation.
Click to expand...

Regardless of laws, rights, etc.?
 
Rucker61 said:
Something like this?

"The study examined Chicago police data from from 138,163 individuals who were arrested between 2006 and 2014, nearly 10,000 of whom were also victims of gun violence. The demographics: 75 percent of those individuals were black, 82 percent were men, and 26 percent were part of a gang. On average, they were 27 years old at the midpoint of the study."

"“Say you and I are friends and I’ve just been shot and we’re hanging out. By spending time with me, you’re now being exposed to the risk factors that led to me being shot,” said Ben Green, coauthor of the new paper and an applied mathematician at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Time was also a factor. Individuals were more susceptible to gun violence immediately after an associate they’d co-offended with was shot. On average, victims were shot 125 days after their “infector” fell prey to gun violence.

“It’s the same thing with getting a cold. You’re less susceptible the longer it’s been since you were exposed,” Green said."

'The research raises a key question: How can communities rein in the epidemic of gun violence?

“Given that we’re able to identify individuals at high risk, that presents an opportunity to target those individuals for social services,” Green said. He listed mental health, educational, and housing services, along with job training, as potential ways to interrupt the risks.

But Branas argued people aren’t necessarily the only target.

“We should think heavily about places, and how we might change places to interrupt gun violence as a disease,” he said. That includes cleaning up neighborhoods and revamping abandoned buildings and vacant lots. Previous controlled trials have shown that fixing up run-down neighborhoods has been successful in reducing violence in cities such as New Orleans."

Gun violence spreads like an infectious disease, new research finds | PBS NewsHour

How is this news? We've known for some time that being a violent criminal and associating with violent criminals is risky behavior.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but it goes deeper than that. What does the word "associating" mean? Hanging out with them? Living next-door to them? Living under the same roof as them?

Modeling the spread of gun violence this way is what helped Chicago get a hold of some of its gang violence in recent years. For instance, when someone got shot or killed, the cops would go after anyone up to two degrees of separation from the victim for simple misdemeanor charges with the same level of urgency as if they were wanted for murder.
 
Rucker61 said:
Regardless of laws, rights, etc.?
Click to expand...

What is that even supposed to mean? I am simply advocating for the description of the problem before we can even consider the methods of solving it. This is a First Amendment issue, not a Second.
 
Phys251 said:
Perhaps but it goes deeper than that. What does the word "associating" mean? Hanging out with them? Living next-door to them? Living under the same roof as them?

Modeling the spread of gun violence this way is what helped Chicago get a hold of some of its gang violence in recent years. For instance, when someone got shot or killed, the cops would go after anyone up to two degrees of separation from the victim for simple misdemeanor charges with the same level of urgency as if they were wanted for murder.
Click to expand...

They'd arrest those "associated" with the victim for misdemeanor charges?
 
Phys251 said:
What is that even supposed to mean? I am simply advocating for the description of the problem before we can even consider the methods of solving it. This is a First Amendment issue, not a Second.
Click to expand...

"As many policy decisions as possible need to be driven by the numbers that most nearly and comprehensively reflect the reality of the applicable situation."

What is this supposed to mean? It's simply a numbers game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom