Of course the planet will survive, that isn't the question.
Whether humans will and under what conditions is.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
They Say Crime Is On The Decrease....
- Thread starter ZenG
- Start date
Of course the planet will survive, that isn't the question.
Whether humans will and under what conditions is.
moot and archaic.... thousands of laws have been created since then to address those very issues
what use do we have for more legislation that punishes a law abiding citizen and does nothing to stem the flow of violence and criminal activity
How about taking criminals off the street? Rahm Emanuel whose city (Chicago) is historically inflicted some of the harshest gun laws in the nation on its citizens is in lock step demanding more restrictions that only punish and apply only to honest law abiding citizen! Emanuel's response can be summed up in three words defining his so called remedy for gun violence
Misfeasance
Malfeasance
Nonfeasance
Everyday America has no idea what mandatory federal penalties are for violent armed criminals in they did gun control schemes and further legislation would be nonstarters
Emanuels' silence makes him culpable for the acts of criminals in his city Same goes for Eric Holder and Michael Bloomberg
Chicago ranks dead last in terms of enforcement of federal firearm laws against criminals.
the reality is that every conceivable act committed by criminals involving firearms of any kind is already illegal under very tough Federal Laws that already cover every corner of our great nation.
The mantra of gun banners is always the same: their local draconian and state gun control laws are negated by guns coming from other jurisdictions with lax gun laws. That argument and excuse are hoaxes
when guns are smuggled into Chicago, Emanuel knows there are multiple violations of federal laws that provide harsh penalties for these acts involved with interstate trafficking. anyone who transports or receives a firearm or ammunition in interstate commerce with the intent to commit a felony is automatically subject to a 10 year prison sentence. If Drugs or violence are involved there are multipliers that can make it a lifetime sentence. Simple possession of a firearm or ammunition by a violent felon violates his probation are calls for an automatic 10 year sentence, and Yet the mayor and powers that be of Chicago choose not to demand their application, so as a result gun violence is worse per capita than the entire country of Mexico!!
If the Justice Department were to systematically target and prosecute criminals who commit the daily fare of urban slaughter and assault the results would be an instant and dramatic drop in violent crime. If you doubt this statement google project Exile
Project Exile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Detroit is finally paying attention because of Chief James Craig and U.S. Attorney Barbera L. Mcquade
Link Removed
Now think about it this way:
Almost all Americans own and use Computers, cell phones, and tablets at work, or on the go. We buy them, trade them, sell them and give them as gifts. these devices are now ubiquitous and we constantly upgrade them
but these devices are used for Fraud, dissemination of child pornography, Identity theft, recruiting terrorists, theft, hacking of private materials including social security numbers, bank records, and credit records. They are used to bully, and attack private citizens, and public businesses
No law in the land can prevent "cybercrime" and no law can keep computers or electronic devices out of the hands of cybercriminals
Now imagine the government and your president demanded all computer users and owners pay the price for the acts of these cyber criminals
what would be the public reaction if the government claiming to prevent cybercrime or digital terrorism, required all citizens to undergo an invasive Background check before acquiring a computer or cell phone. what if the transfer of any computer or cellphone without the approval of city state and federal government were suddenly a felony. And what if not passing the background checks, for reason the is under no obligation to divulge, made possession of a computer or cell phone a criminal act!
the outrage would be overwhelming, because after all most of the owners of digital devices and computers are neither criminals, or terrorists...they are simply honest law abiding citizens exercising their first amendment rights to free speech
but that is exactly the senseless threat all gun owners and future gun owners face in America
Americas thin blue line is being thinned and frayed by mass hysteria, fear, frustration, interference and attrition. The FBI states that between 2003 and 2013 the number of law enforcement officers fell by over 46,000 employees, which ironically, is almost the same number of federal felons set to be released from prison under new sentencing guidelines. In many cases across our nation law enforcement officers are being ordered to stand down under the weight of political pressure due to recent events heavily reported in the media. When cops are forced to be bystanders, and honest law abiding citizens have no means to protect themselves other than a telephone.... violent criminals will rush in to fill the void
California is releasing 13,500 prisoners monthly roughly 3,000 of those were supposed to be serving life sentences
six felonies because of Prop 47 were redefined as misdemeanors.
Look at New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit and Washington D.C.
New Orleans
New Orleans has a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people which ranks rank second in the world for Gun violence
Detroit’s gun-homicide rate is 35.9 per 100,000 is just a bit less than the entire country of El Salvador which is at 39.9
Gun homicide in Chicago 11.6 per 100,000 which puts them on par with the entire country of Guyana at 11.5
Washington D.C. 19 per 100,000 which is a higher rate of gun homicide than the entire country of Brazil at 18.1
why did I single out these particular cities
Because they have the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, and also have gun murder rates that rival those of the most violent countries in the world!
From the World Health Organization:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
Murders per 100,000 citizens
- Honduras 91.6
- El Salvador 69.2
- Cote d’lvoire 56.9
- Jamaica 52.2
- Venezuela 45.1
- Belize 41.4
- US Virgin Islands 39.2
- Guatemala 38.5
- Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
- Zambia 38.0
- Uganda 36.3
- Malawi 36.0
- Lesotho 35.2
- Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
- Colombia 33.4
- South Africa 31.8
- Congo 30.8
- Central African Republic 29.3
- Bahamas 27.4
- Puerto Rico 26.2
- Saint Lucia 25.2
- Dominican Republic 25.0
- Tanzania 24.5
- Sudan 24.2
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
- Ethiopia 22.5
- Guinea 22.5
- Dominica 22.1
- Burundi 21.7
- Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
- Panama 21.6
- Brazil 21.0
- Equatorial Guinea 20.7
- Guinea-Bissau 20.2
- Kenya 20.1
- Kyrgyzstan 20.1
- Cameroon 19.7
- Montserrat 19.7
- Greenland 19.2
- Angola 19.0
- Guyana 18.6
- Burkina Faso 18.0
- Eritrea 17.8
- Namibia 17.2
- Rwanda 17.1
- Mexico 16.9
- Chad 15.8
- Ghana 15.7
- Ecuador 15.2
- North Korea 15.2
- Benin 15.1
- Sierra Leone 14.9
- Mauritania 14.7
- Botswana 14.5
- Zimbabwe 14.3
- Gabon 13.8
- Nicaragua 13.6
- French Guiana 13.3
- Papua New Guinea 13.0
- Swaziland 12.9
- Bermuda 12.3
- Comoros 12.2
- Nigeria 12.2
- Cape Verde 11.6
- Grenada 11.5
- Paraguay 11.5
- Barbados 11.3
- Togo 10.9
- Gambia 10.8
- Peru 10.8
- Myanmar 10.2
- Russia 10.2
- Liberia 10.1
- Costa Rica 10.0
- Nauru 9.8
- Bolivia 8.9
- Mozambique 8.8
- Kazakhstan 8.8
- Senegal 8.7
- Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
- Mongolia 8.7
- British Virgin Islands 8.6
- Cayman Islands 8.4
- Seychelles 8.3
- Madagascar 8.1
- Indonesia 8.1
- Mali 8.0
- Pakistan 7.8
- Moldova 7.5
- Kiribati 7.3
- Guadeloupe 7.0
- Haiti 6.9
- Timor-Leste 6.9
- Anguilla 6.8
- Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
- Lithuania 6.6
- Uruguay 5.9
- Philippines 5.4
- Ukraine 5.2
- Estonia 5.2
- Cuba 5.0
- Belarus 4.9
- Thailand 4.8
- Suriname 4.6
- Laos 4.6
- Georgia 4.3
- Martinique 4.2
And finally at…
108. The United States 4.2
all of the countries listed above have Anti-Gun laws that are far reaching
I will admit Crime is a subject that no one seems to be able to effectively deal with or have the answer to, there are many and varied factors that need to be addressed, and the battle needs to be fought on many fronts
I'm just a humble guy that thinks the best answer for me is to arm myself, educate myself, and protect my own
Why!? because politicians won't and the police can't
I heard a joke today that went something like this:
it's your right to not believe in gun ownership, it's your right to not believe in a higher power, but when an armed assailant breaks into your home intent on doing you harm the first thing you do is call someone that carries a gun and pray they arrive in time.
but please stop making your arguments personal
and above all else respect both sides of the coin
we are after all BASS players who share the love of music if nothing else
Peace out!
Last edited:
Your words. .....
"So the answer to your question Millions?, is yes, millions in the U.S. alone"
Ha! So, we have a population of 300 and some odd million people. And, according to you MILLIONS of us are scientists who agree with the big climate scare? When you use that term in a plural sense, I have to assume you mean at least 3 million. So, what you are saying is that ONE PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION are scientists? One in every hundred people in the US are scientists who specialize in a field that would somehow be involved with the subject of climate change.
I have to thank you. I just figured out how to make a huge amount of money. I am going to market office supplies, T shirts, and bumper stickers specifically to our climate scientist community. Who knew there were millions of them?
Come on now. I admitted that the ridiculous derail was my fault. I even tried to bring it back around to crime. And I don't mind having a serious conversation with someone who disagrees with me.
That being said, you are no longer being serious. You are just being silly. You seem like a smart guy. And I like that you care. But I'm just going to bow out here and hopefully the OP will get his thread back.
Carry on party people.
"So the answer to your question Millions?, is yes, millions in the U.S. alone"
Ha! So, we have a population of 300 and some odd million people. And, according to you MILLIONS of us are scientists who agree with the big climate scare? When you use that term in a plural sense, I have to assume you mean at least 3 million. So, what you are saying is that ONE PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION are scientists? One in every hundred people in the US are scientists who specialize in a field that would somehow be involved with the subject of climate change.
I have to thank you. I just figured out how to make a huge amount of money. I am going to market office supplies, T shirts, and bumper stickers specifically to our climate scientist community. Who knew there were millions of them?
Come on now. I admitted that the ridiculous derail was my fault. I even tried to bring it back around to crime. And I don't mind having a serious conversation with someone who disagrees with me.
That being said, you are no longer being serious. You are just being silly. You seem like a smart guy. And I like that you care. But I'm just going to bow out here and hopefully the OP will get his thread back.
Carry on party people.
Your words. .....
"So the answer to your question Millions?, is yes, millions in the U.S. alone"
Ha! So, we have a population of 300 and some odd million people. And, according to you MILLIONS of us are scientists who agree with the big climate scare? When you use that term in a plural sense, I have to assume you mean at least 3 million. So, what you are saying is that ONE PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION are scientists? One in every hundred people in the US are scientists who specialize in a field that would somehow be involved with the subject of climate change.
I have to thank you. I just figured out how to make a huge amount of money. I am going to market office supplies, T shirts, and bumper stickers specifically to our climate scientist community. Who knew there were millions of them?
Come on now. I admitted that the ridiculous derail was my fault. I even tried to bring it back around to crime. And I don't mind having a serious conversation with someone who disagrees with me.
That being said, you are no longer being serious. You are just being silly. You seem like a smart guy. And I like that you care. But I'm just going to bow out here and hopefully the OP will get his thread back.
Carry on party people.
It's not my fault you are unable to understand my statement. TEN million graduate degrees were issued for Bsc and up degrees in the period I mentioned, making them eligible for the petition you linked.
These are not confined to climate scientists, same as the petitioners were not.
Do your own research if you don't want to read the links I and others provide. You may also choose to read and understand the links you provide before ridiculing others, as it is not them who will appear to be the silly ones.
I'm glad you are bowing out because your habit of ridiculing others and your sarcasm turns every discussion into a futile and unpleasant experience. Funny though that you choose to do so after injecting another subject into the mix, and then bowing out when your primary source is shown to be an industry funded, unscientific, and ethically questionable propaganda piece that has become the backbone of the denier movement, endlessly trotted out again and again in spite of being debunked beyond argument.
Last edited:
As a Rifle Expert and Pistol Expert in my Marine Corps days, I have to say we're on the same page.My counter argument is that we are already as armed as we're going to be, where "armed" means that a person has a gun and is capable and willing to successfully defend themselves with it. This depends on the person, not the gun, and it depends on exactly what happens, none of which can be predicted or controlled. I don't think you can make people "armed" just by giving them guns.
The mindset of the criminal is that they know this, and are committing crimes at a rate commensurate with the population being as "armed" as we are ever going to be.
I believe that a gun is just a dangerous toy for most people. This isn't anti-gun, or even limited to guns, but just reflects a realistic view of human nature. I also have my own expectations of what happens when a lot of people get into their cars with their cell phones, that would probably offend those people.
I have no idea what it's like to own a gun or to think about defending myself with one. If I were given one, I would try to dispose of it, or render it inoperable. I found a cache of ammo in my house when I was remodeling a bathroom, and we had the police come and take the stuff away. I strongly suspect the previous owner, an old widow with grown kids, had no idea it was there. Most likely, someone else in the household got the idea of having a gun, then lost interest in it. I have searched high and low to make sure there is no gun in my house.
The TSA confiscates guns from people in airports because the owners "forgot" that they were carrying, and walk through the metal detector. This is the mental level of people that we're dealing with.
The constitutional laws have many interpretations.
the planet will be fine. the human race will not. as soon as humans are extinct, earth begins to flourish again
It works in Britain.
+1. I strongly suspect that if you gave free guns to everyone in the US, the number of gun deaths would rise, sharply. There would be a huge increase in the number of accidental gun deaths, because the people who don't currently own guns are the ones who obviously weren't that fussed about having them in the first place, therefore are less likely to learn how to use it properly, and less likely to take steps to prevent accidents from happening. The other thing is that if someone threatens you with a gun, you are much less likely to get shot if you don't give them a reason to shoot you. If someone breaks into your house, the likelihood is that that person just wants to steal something. The chances of them being a mass murderer who just wants to kill you is very slim. If you just let that person take what they want, they are less likely to shoot you than if you try and resist. If you give everyone guns, the people who never botherered to learn how to use it because they didn't really want one in the first place will all get killed by the criminals, who have taken the time to effectively use their weapon.
If you read the list, you might also notice that the vast majority of countries in that list are markedly less developed than the US.
As a comparison to Snakeman's figures, the murder rate in the UK for financial year 2013-2014 (the most recent figures I could find) is 0.98 per 100,000. And that is total murders, not just gun murders. Every year in the last 15 years that I could find figures for, gun deaths accounted for less than 10% of murders in the UK, so for 2013-14, the number of gun deaths per 100,000 people is less than 0.1, which makes the US's figure of 4.2 look pretty huge.
I think that the only thing you can really tell from the figures that everyone is throwing around is that the number of guns/number of armed households in a country have no fixed effect on the gun-murder rate of a country. It is a cultural thing. There are some countries where everyone can own guns and the murder rate is high, and there are some where it is low. There are some countries with very strict gun control laws that have a very high murder rate, and some where it is very low. This leads me to the conclusion that gun ownership does not affect murder rate. It is the attitude of the people who own the guns. It is often said that it is not guns that kill people - people kill people. In the US, people obviously like killing people.
I think that the only thing you can really tell from the figures that everyone is throwing around is that the number of guns/number of armed households in a country have no fixed effect on the gun-murder rate of a country. It is a cultural thing. There are some countries where everyone can own guns and the murder rate is high, and there are some where it is low. There are some countries with very strict gun control laws that have a very high murder rate, and some where it is very low. This leads me to the conclusion that gun ownership does not affect murder rate. It is the attitude of the people who own the guns. It is often said that it is not guns that kill people - people kill people. In the US, people obviously like killing people.
Finally... not. You missed about half of the world's countries.
only included the countries with very strong ANTI-GUN laws
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? they are countries with strong and far reaching ANTI GUN laws....
your not taking into account that we have a much much higher rate of gun ownership than most of these countries and yet we rank that low
and I you took the figures from Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, and D.C. out of the mix we would fall much further down the list...
the point I was trying to make in including those figures is each one of the cities listed above has very strict Draconian far reaching anti Gun laws or Flat out Gun Bans and yet they have a higher gun murder rate than some of the most dangerous Countries in the world!
and In Kennesaw Georgia where it's against the law to NOT own a gun murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year!
and since 1997 when the U.K Banned handguns there is a Knife attack every 4 minutes which translates to roughly 130,000 per year
even if we as a planet destroyed every gun in existence today criminals would still find a way to kill! (see human history....crime was around long before the gun was invented) guns are not to blame...they do not go off by themselves....a person has to pull the trigger and that is what we need to address
The British Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.
"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.
"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.
"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets."
Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighborhood policing", he added.
Last edited:
Because presumably a lot of the countries that come below the US are more developed than the ones at the top of the list, and the majority of them probably have 'strong and far reaching ANTI GUN laws'. Therefore, the correlation is not whether or not countries have 'ANTI GUN laws', but how developed that country is. The US stands out as being a well developed country with very high gun-murder rates.
Last edited:
These numbers were completely cherry picked. It don't wash. Almost every country has stronger gun laws than the US.
Singapore: Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Singapore | Law Library of Congress
Japan: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Iceland: Iceland: Plenty Of Guns, But Hardly Any Violence
Also, the list you have posted is titled 'Murders per 100,000 citizens'. Is that just gun murders, or is it all murders?
If it is all murders, then it's not really relevant, and is verging on deliberately misleading.
EDIT: According to this article (Invalid Link Removed) the US ranks at number 28 in the world if you go only on gun murders.
(1) Why are more people being incarcerated than ever in the U.S.? Many reasons: population increase, more things that people can be found guilty of, growing percentage of low income losers who commit petty crimes, etc.
(2) Why have more prisons been built? Population in crease.
(3) Why do more police than ever respond to a single call? Depends on the call. More opportunity/willingness for perps to attack cops.
(4) Why do police need more and more highpowered weapons and hi-tech equipment? They don't.
(5) Why are laws constantly being put on the table to give the authorities increasing carte-blanche to do what they do, putting aside previous civilian "rights"? If I answer this question truthfully I will get banned again. If you want the answer then PM me.
The earth doesn't care one iota whether humans will survive. There have been several mass extinctions in which over 75 percent of all species went extinct. Humans evolved after the most recent one. No problem. A hundred and fifty years from now, every single person now on earth will be dead. In fact, 150,000 of us died today.
