10 Colorado officers shot, 3 killed in the line of duty over past 5 weeks

holbritter said:

I know they are not the same. Again:

Click to expand...

I know you probably shudder at the thought of registration, but that's the single best tool for gun control - that by itself is a huge step in controlling gun violence. Why? Because when all guns are registered, then that makes it MUCH easier to find out who's smuggling guns and who's selling guns under the table and especially who's buying guns in gun-friendly states and selling them elsewhere. Time and again studies have shown that many - and often most - of the firearms used in violent crimes in, say, Chicago were purchased in gun-friendly areas...which is precisely what leads to "gun-free zones" being a joke. One can't have a gun-free zone if there is no way to keep others from buying guns from gun-friendly areas and selling them there under the table.

And registration would stop most of that.

But y'all will never agree to it, no matter how many innocent lives would be saved each year, all because y'all have been brainwashed to think "shall not be infringed" while completely ignoring the real reason the preparatory phrase of the 2A was included. Armed militias are no longer essential to the security of the state...and so that obviates the rest of the 2A. NO, I don't want all guns banned - very few people who grow up in the boonies like I did would ever think that way - but the time has long since passed that the 2A can be used as an excuse for almost anyone to have whatever kind of firearm that he wants - as the 58 dead and 500+ wounded in Las Vegas by ONE MAN all found out.

Again, registration would go a LONG way to stopping that.

And that goes back to the subject - registration is the single most important part of gun control - the rest is just gravy, as it were.

Glen Contrarian said:

And both NZ's and UK's homicide rates are - how did you put it? - WAY WAY WAY lower than America's. And FYI, there's a big difference between NZ and UK, in that NZ is a LOT more rural than the UK...and it's normal and expected for those who live in rural areas to have a significantly higher rate of firearm ownership. That's why you'd never see me want us to get rid of all firearms - out in the boonies, where the nearest police can be at least a half hour away, there's nothing wrong with having a firearm for varmints - both four-legged and two-legged.

And in any case, both NZ and UK have FAR lower homicide rates than America...and of course, I"m sure that the fact that both nations have much stricter gun control laws than America is only a coincidence, right? Mm-hmm...riiiiiiiight....

Click to expand...

Exactly.. they are lower than Americas.. yet NZ with more guns is lower than the UK's.

YOUR OWN DATA.

Your OWN DATA.. proves that as you then say.. its just a coincidence when it comes to gun control... it actually has more to do with demographics like poverty, safety nets, rural vs urban and so on. Just like the difference between the UK and the US. Just like the difference between the US and mexico.

Despite the differences in gun control.

You just don't want to believe your own data.

Glen Contrarian said:

You didn't even read what Politifact said, did you? AGAIN: "Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

.

Click to expand...

I did read it. You apparently did not read it. In other words.. there OWN DATA.. found that the UK's violent crime rate was higher than the US , when they tried to compare apples to apples. That crime rate that was higher.. was not as high as the "claim" presented . BUT the data still showed that the crime rate was higher in the UK.

THAT, sir, is why I keep the stats to homicides, because the definitions of homicide and murder aren't very different.

Click to expand...

No.. you keep the stats to homocides.. and particularly you love "gun homocides" because you like the data it presents. Its a nice way to cherry pick the data to fit your meme.

the problem is.. even using your cherry picked data.. your meme fails. Because using homicide data.. you just found out that NZ with much looser gun laws.. has a LOWER homicide rate than the UK with stricter laws.

And that's the problem with your anti gun nuts... you just don't want to by intellectually honest.

Glen Contrarian said:

I know you probably shudder at the thought of registration, but that's the single best tool for gun control - that by itself is a huge step in controlling gun violence. Why? Because when all guns are registered, then that makes it MUCH easier to find out who's smuggling guns and who's selling guns under the table and especially who's buying guns in gun-friendly states and selling them elsewhere. .

Click to expand...

What a load of crap. gun registration does nothing to make "it easier to find out who is smuggling guns under the table or buying guns in gun friendly states and selling them elsewhere when it comes to criminals.

Law abiding citiens? Yes... criminals.. who understand how to work a metal file? No.

And registration would stop most of that.

Click to expand...

Flat out bald faced lie.

But y'all will never agree to it, no matter how many innocent lives would be saved each year

Click to expand...

because none will.. all it will do is make it harder for gun owners.. and easier for the government to confiscate our firearms.

registration is the single most important part of gun control - the rest is just gravy, as it were.

Click to expand...

if you want to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.. then yes.

Criminals? no way.. no how.

jaeger19 said:

Exactly.. they are lower than Americas.. yet NZ with more guns is lower than the UK's.

YOUR OWN DATA.

Your OWN DATA.. proves that as you then say.. its just a coincidence when it comes to gun control... it actually has more to do with demographics like poverty, safety nets, rural vs urban and so on. Just like the difference between the UK and the US. Just like the difference between the US and mexico.

Despite the differences in gun control.

You just don't want to believe your own data.

Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention, have you? As I said to begin with, it's not just the presence of firearms, but the level of poverty. NZ doesn't publish its level of poverty, but if I were a betting man, I'd be betting quite a bit that the UK's level of poverty is significantly higher than that of NZ.

jaeger19 said:

I did read it. You apparently did not read it. In other words.. there OWN DATA.. found that the UK's violent crime rate was higher than the US , when they tried to compare apples to apples. That crime rate that was higher.. was not as high as the "claim" presented . BUT the data still showed that the crime rate was higher in the UK.



No.. you keep the stats to homocides.. and particularly you love "gun homocides" because you like the data it presents. Its a nice way to cherry pick the data to fit your meme.

the problem is.. even using your cherry picked data.. your meme fails. Because using homicide data.. you just found out that NZ with much looser gun laws.. has a LOWER homicide rate than the UK with stricter laws.

And that's the problem with your anti gun nuts... you just don't want to by intellectually honest.

Click to expand...

And as I pointed out in a different reply less than two minutes ago, you haven't been paying attention - my point was that the biggest factors were (1) prevalence of firearms in the population, and (2) level of poverty in the population...and I'm really not sure which of those two is more important. NZ does NOT publish its poverty rate, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet quite a bit that their poverty rate is significantly lower than the UK's.

You can see it even here in America - the MidWest has about the same level of gun ownership as the Deep South, but the Deep South has a much higher homicide rate. The two regions have similar gun-control laws (or lack thereof), so what makes the difference? Poverty.

jaeger19 said:

What a load of crap. gun registration does nothing to make "it easier to find out who is smuggling guns under the table or buying guns in gun friendly states and selling them elsewhere when it comes to criminals.

Law abiding citiens? Yes... criminals.. who understand how to work a metal file? No.

Flat out bald faced lie.


because none will.. all it will do is make it harder for gun owners.. and easier for the government to confiscate our firearms.


if you want to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.. then yes.

Criminals? no way.. no how.

Click to expand...

Yes, registration DOES doe that. How? Because it allows the police to see who bought the firearm in question first...and from there it's a relatively simple matter of investigation to find how that firearm found its way into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Absentglare said:

Please explain what you mean by "made up": you can't possibly be claiming that all incomes are equal. I'm going to assume that you realize that incomes vary.

You seem to be claiming that all incomes are in perfect proportion. That sounds almost as silly to me. You do realize that people get billions of dollars to sit on their ass? Those are the entitled teat-sucklers that are dragging the economy down.

Click to expand...

You realize that their wealth is the reason they can sit on their ass. My issue isn’t with people who have the money and don’t do ****. I also don’t have an issue with people who are broke and don’t do ****. My issue is with those who claim they deserve more money for jobs not worth more money. If they want to make more money...they need to go into fields worth more money. Supply and demand.

Glen Contrarian said:

And as I pointed out in a different reply less than two minutes ago, you haven't been paying attention - my point was that the biggest factors were (1) prevalence of firearms in the population, and (2) level of poverty in the population...and I'm really not sure which of those two is more important. NZ does NOT publish its poverty rate, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet quite a bit that their poverty rate is significantly lower than the UK's.

You can see it even here in America - the MidWest has about the same level of gun ownership as the Deep South, but the Deep South has a much higher homicide rate. The two regions have similar gun-control laws (or lack thereof), so what makes the difference? Poverty.

Click to expand...

'

'Yeah no.. I HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION . YOU AREN"T. when you compare just firearms.. there is no correlation. UK is more murders with less firearms. Statistically.. that removes gun control as a factor.

IF the biggest factors were prevalence with firearms.. then there should be a positive correlation.. more firearms.. more murder rate.

THEN if there are additional factors.. like poverty in the population.. then that would ADD to that higher murder rate.

In other words.. the prevalence of firearms would explain the higher murder rate to a small degree.. and the poverty rate explain it to a larger degree.

BUT THERE IS NO POSITIVE CORRELATION WITH FIREARMS PREVALENCE and MURDER RATE when you compare UK And the NZ.

Thus prevalence of firearms has nothing to do with the murder rate.

Assuming you are correct.. that poverty explains the difference in murder rate from the deep south, and the Midwest... then POVERTY and not gun prevalence explains it. Just like CHICAGO.. with extensive gun laws.. has more violent crime and murder than similar citties with much more lax gun laws.

The difference is probably poverty, or disenfranchisement of minorities etc.

What it all your evidence leads up to haymarket.. is that your evidence does not support that gun control is effective. Your evidence supports that gun control IS NOT A FACTOR.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yes, registration DOES doe that. How? Because it allows the police to see who bought the firearm in question first...and from there it's a relatively simple matter of investigation to find how that firearm found its way into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Click to expand...

Really.. HOW does it allow the police to see who bought the weapon first? How can you identify who bought the weapon.. when a metal file has taken off the serial number?

A simple file removes any identifying marks.. making gun registration completely useless.

My god man... how can you not see that??? HAs your hatred of gun owners, and fear of guns made you lose all common sense... (don't answer..its a rhetorical question.. of course your premise lacks common sense).

blackjack50 said:

You realize that their wealth is the reason they can sit on their ass. My issue isn’t with people who have the money and don’t do ****. I also don’t have an issue with people who are broke and don’t do ****. My issue is with those who claim they deserve more money for jobs not worth more money. If they want to make more money...they need to go into fields worth more money. Supply and demand.

Click to expand...

Who determines the bold? How much is a persons time worth?

You supply an answer at the end: "supply and demand". Unfortunately, we know that there are issues with monopsony power and regulatory capture, along with job search frictions and health benefits, that work to artificially depress wages.

Supply and demand are most effective with an infinite market. In an infinite market, employees AND employers compete fiercely. This drives profits to ZERO and every worker is paid exactly what their time is worth.

But we don't have an infinite market. We have a very finite market with an unmistakably discrete set of employers.

Absentglare said:

Who determines the bold? How much is a persons time worth?

You supply an answer at the end: "supply and demand". Unfortunately, we know that there are issues with monopsony power and regulatory capture, along with job search frictions and health benefits, that work to artificially depress wages.

Supply and demand are most effective with an infinite market. In an infinite market, employees AND employers compete fiercely. This drives profits to ZERO and every worker is paid exactly what their time is worth.

But we don't have an infinite market. We have a very finite market with an unmistakably discrete set of employers.

Click to expand...

Unmistakably discrete? What do you mean by this?

And what I CAN tell you is that supply and demand works in our current market. Let me ask you...what do you think the demand is for a high school drop out with NO trade skills? How much do you think their labor is worth? How easily replaced are they?

blackjack50 said:

Unmistakably discrete? What do you mean by this?

And what I CAN tell you is that supply and demand works in our current market. Let me ask you...what do you think the demand is for a high school drop out with NO trade skills? How much do you think their labor is worth? How easily replaced are they?

Click to expand...

What i mean by unmistakably discrete is that we have a very limited set of choices.

If you want to work as a cashier, you can go to Walmart and accept whatever they offer. If you want to buy a towel, you might go to Walmart.

In an infinite market, there might be a Walmort down the road that pays $1.00/hr more and where towels costs $0.10 less because the owners aren't raking in billions of dollars. But in real life, there's no Walmort option.

Glen Contrarian said:

If you listen to the Right, making sure that it's as easy as possible for everyone to purchase firearms will make America a safer place i.e. if more people have guns, less people (including fewer police) get shot.

That, and the cow will certainly jump over the moon.

Click to expand...

LOL....here we go again.

Legal gun owners already use the proper channels to buy firearms.

What's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooeasy Glen?

Absentglare said:

What i mean by unmistakably discrete is that we have a very limited set of choices.

If you want to work as a cashier, you can go to Walmart and accept whatever they offer. If you want to buy a towel, you might go to Walmart.

In an infinite market, there might be a Walmort down the road that pays $1.00/hr more and where towels costs $0.10 less because the owners aren't raking in billions of dollars. But in real life, there's no Walmort option.

Click to expand...

Dollar general? Target? Kohl’s? Online retail? Even in a small town...you have options. It may not be “infinite,” but Walmart isn’t the only option. It isn’t for work. It isn’t for buying things. Walmart is successful because they are cheap. Chick-fil-A vs McDonald’s. Who pays more? Which place is better?

blackjack50 said:

Dollar general? Target? Kohl’s? Online retail? Even in a small town...you have options. It may not be “infinite,” but Walmart isn’t the only option. It isn’t for work. It isn’t for buying things. Walmart is successful because they are cheap. Chick-fil-A vs McDonald’s. Who pays more? Which place is better?

Click to expand...

The point i'm making still stands.

The economic laws you're entrusting to distribute resources in reality are based on an ideal. The ideal free market is infinite, it pits competitor against competitor so fiercely that they both lower prices until profit is zero.

We can tell how healthy and competitive our markets are by looking at profit margins. Comcast has a >97% profit margin on high speed internet service. It costs them a few dollars per month to provide and they charge the customer $100/mo or so.

If Comcast faced serious competition, they'd have to bring the prices down: but they don't.

If Walmart faced serious competition, the owners wouldn't be able to stockpile so many billions of dollars.

Excess profit is fundamentally waste in a competitive economy.

blackjack50 said:

Unmistakably discrete? What do you mean by this?

And what I CAN tell you is that supply and demand works in our current market. Let me ask you...what do you think the demand is for a high school drop out with NO trade skills? How much do you think their labor is worth? How easily replaced are they?

Click to expand...

Another thing that works is, 'you get what you pay for'. If you want quality people in your city police or sheriff's department, you need to pay them enough so they don't go to the state police or FBI or one of the dozens of other law enforcement options.

SMH!!!

Making a political issue out of cops being killed.

Amount of problems ive experienced with legally armed citizens = 0

While I can say I don't know any cops that do the job for the money, there is a serious problem with how they are compensated.Same for firefighters. Good people leave law enforcement because they can make more money not risking their lives for a populace that is often times engaged in a bunch of baseless rhetoric against them. In my own home town there is a weekly update on the turnover rate for officers. They only have budget for around 100 officers, but they are losing an average of two cops a month or something like that. Its due to low pay and reduced benefits. The city prioritizes funding construction and improvements over services. The P.D. is running at about 70% of normal staffing and has very few street officers with over 5 years of experience left. They are rotating seasoned detectives back out to uniform patrol because they need experienced supervisor out there more than they need detectives investigating burglaries. One shift has six officers and the most experienced patrolman has 2.5 years on the job. THAT is scary. Officers are having to pull mandatory overtime, which is putting stress on the families, and taxing the cops so much that it's affecting the way they interact with the public. Complaints are up and that's never good.

This last election was awful for cops. There was a full court press to vilify law enforcement as a bunch of cowboy racists getting away with murdering innocent, unarmed black men. Its one of the main reasons I jumped out of the Democrat party and voted libertarian. I believe Obama was a good President. Not perfect by any means, but good. That said I found it revolting the way he, Clinton, and Sanders used their podium to **** all over good men and women doing a very hard job to serve and protect a community that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. And where are all the resources Trump promised the law enforcement community? Where is budget that reinstates the programs Republicans gutted or outright canceled in the late 2000's?

Yes, cops volunteer. They know the job is dangerous, and they know the pay isn't that great. I am thankful that there are still men and women who take the self-appointed responsibility to stand watch over a community that loves them one day and hates them the next over the latest social media outrage, and they do it till they can do it no longer. Are there bad cops, racist cops, cops who have murdered people? Sure. They are a the exception, not the rule. The overwhelming majority of cops are solid people who believe in what they are doing. What you are seeing is the result of a political system that sunk millions of dollars into a campaign built on specious claims and deliberately sacrificed a community of selfless, brave individuals in court of public opinion solely so they could try to win elections.

This is resulting in the loss of experienced veterans and a growing reliance on young cops who have less and less in the way of mentors and skilled trainers. The problem is further exacerbated by cities and counties relaxing their standards so they can get slots filled. And we all know what happens then. A cop isn't really considered seasoned until he or she has been on the job for three years. A lot of cops aren't making it that long any more. This is a huge problem for this country.

Grand Mal said:

Another thing that works is, 'you get what you pay for'. If you want quality people in your city police or sheriff's department, you need to pay them enough so they don't go to the state police or FBI or one of the dozens of other law enforcement options.

Click to expand...

Precisely.