What lessons can Canada teach America about deadly gun violence?

[jaeger19]

"extent of under-reporting of police violence"

How is that not a cover-up ?
And resulted in deflated figures released by the police - hence the need for revised estimates.



Clearly you didn't.

How is it a cover up? Please explain in detail.
How do you know its not due to the different definition or criteria used. You know that each of the three databases they used.. used different critieria right.. and that there were other databases that also used different criteria.

And again Again. it used revised estimates.. not actual numbers...

Clearly.. you didn;t read the article..

 

[Rich2018]

No, you weren't. You wrote: "if there are any in the gun control lobby, who'd list a reduction in suicides as a main motivation for gun control".

A reduction in suicides is a side issue.

The web site you listed does state that a gun ban would reduce suicides....I think it would but not significantly.
It would certainly reduce the success rate.

But I take your point, it does look like that writers of that web site, do think that a significant reduction in suicide is a benefit of gun control.

 

[Rucker61]

A reduction in suicides is a side issue.

The web site you listed does state that a gun ban would reduce suicides....I think it would but not significantly.
It would certainly reduce the success rate.

But I take your point, it does look like that writers of that web site, do think that a significant reduction in suicide is a benefit of gun control

By website, you mean the home pages for Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, Moms Demand Action and Giffords?

 

[Rich2018]

How is it a cover up? Please explain in detail.

By deliberately under reporting.

How do you know its not due to the different definition or criteria used.

Because the report speaks of deliberately under-reporting.

You know that each of the three databases they used.. used different critieria right.. and that there were other databases that also used different criteria.

The police under reported the number of police homicides
Sounds like they were using the same criteria to me...just that the police under-reported the incidents they were involved in.

...and again Again. it used revised estimates.. not actual numbers...

Revised upward because the police had originally under-reported.

Clearly.. you didn;t read the article..

Clearly you don't understand what under-reported means.
What does it mean to you ?

 

[Rich2018]

By website, you mean the home pages for Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, Moms Demand Action and Giffords?

Yes, they think that gun control will reduce suicides, whereas I think it will but not hugely
And is not the main benefit of gun control.

 

[Bum]

.

 

[jaeger19]

By deliberately under reporting.

Again.. show evidence of deliberately under reporting. The authors chose the three databases to use in comparison because other databases used other definitions of police violence in their reporting. You are not offering evidence of deliberate under reporting.

Because the report speaks of deliberately under-reporting.

No it does not. The report speaks to the fact that there is an estimate of the amount of under reporting. It does not offer any explanation of why or if there is any intent to "cover up".

The police under reported the number of police homicides

Perhaps. that may be due to a lot of factors that have nothing to do with covering up malfeasance.

Sounds like they were using the same criteria to me...just that the police under-reported the incidents they were involved in.

Sounds like? No.

Revised upward because the police had originally under-reported.

Revised based on an estimate of the rate of under reporting. Not the actual number of under reporting. In fact.. the databases they compared the police to.. were not as extensive as the police database.. so they extrapolated.. I.e. estimate the number of underreporting.

Clearly you don't understand what under-reported means.
What does it mean to you ?

Clearly I do.
Well first it was based on an estimate of under reporting not actual under reporting.
If the conditions that existed when the under reporting was seen change.. it could mean that future or past reporting could be accurate.

Second. It could mean that the criteria in which police violence was categorized could be the discrepancy.. and not malfeasance.

 

[Rich2018]

Again.. show evidence of deliberately under reporting. The authors chose the three databases to use in comparison because other databases used other definitions of police violence in their reporting. You are not offering evidence of deliberate under reporting.

No it does not. The report speaks to the fact that there is an estimate of the amount of under reporting. It does not offer any explanation of why or if there is any intent to "cover up".

Perhaps. that may be due to a lot of factors that have nothing to do with covering up malfeasance.

Sounds like? No.

Revised based on an estimate of the rate of under reporting. Not the actual number of under reporting. In fact.. the databases they compared the police to.. were not as extensive as the police database.. so they extrapolated.. I.e. estimate the number of underreporting.

Clearly I do.
Well first it was based on an estimate of under reporting not actual under reporting.
If the conditions that existed when the under reporting was seen change.. it could mean that future or past reporting could be accurate.

Second. It could mean that the criteria in which police violence was categorized could be the discrepancy.. and not malfeasance.

What part of under-reporting don't you understand ?

 

[jaeger19]

What part of under-reporting don't you understand ?

None .
You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding what the research you cited did.

 

[bluesmoke]

Of course there is, and what I say applies to everybody else who doesn't want to commit suicide. As I've no desire to commit suicide I shouldn't have to go through extra inconveniences, such as waiting periods, to get a gun. And the same applies to anyI body else who doesn't want to commit suicide, they also shouldn't have to go through extra inconveniences.

How do we know you or anybody else is not purchasing the gun to commit suicide? It is merely a number of days, I've previously suggested as 10 days. There are only 5 states, plus DC, that even have any waiting period of 3 days (or time to approve background check) to 10 days. Hence the need for a fed law on waiting period.

 

[Rucker61]

How do we know you or anybody else is not purchasing the gun to commit suicide? It is merely a number of days, I've previously suggested as 10 days. There are only 5 states, plus DC, that even have any waiting period of 3 days (or time to approve background check) to 10 days. Hence the need for a fed law on waiting period.

Is the purpose if the waiting period to save lives? Would 11 days save more lives than 10 days?

You haven't actually established a need for any waiting period at all.

 

[Rich2018]

None .
You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding what the research you cited did.

So "under-reporting" is a deliberate cover up, is it not ?

 

[DebateChallenge]

How do we know you or anybody else is not purchasing the gun to commit suicide?

I know I don't want to commit suicide, that's what's important. Not what you know. Same thing for everybody else who doesn't want to commit suicide, they know they don't want to commit suicide and that's what's important.

It is merely a number of days, I've previously suggested as 10 days. There are only 5 states, plus DC, that even have any waiting period of 3 days (or time to approve background check) to 10 days. Hence the need for a fed law on waiting period.

What about a woman who is being stalked by her violent psychopath ex? Can she afford to wait 10 days? Probably not.

 

[bomberfox]

Most of US gun violence comes from guns bought by illegal methods. So how are more laws going to fix that?

Seems to be working in Canada and the rest of the developed world.

 

[Rucker61]

Seems to be working in Canada and the rest of the developed world.

If you want laws like Europe or Australia,the US would have to:
1. Repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
2. Overturn at least five SCOTUS decisions.
3. Only allow about 1 in 20 of current firearm owners to own guns.
4. Confiscate about 350 million firearms

 

[bomberfox]

1. You have a large group of gun hobbyists who are actively blocking any gun regulation. And successfully so.

2. People confuse gang violence with handgun deaths. Gang violence has been around for over a hundred years. It's complex and deeply rooted. Hundreds of anti gang initiatives have been tried, but nothing works. If you solve gang violence, you'll get a medal.

3. If you remove gang violence from the equation, the number of gun deaths is drastically reduced.

I support some training before you're allowed to own a gun or buy ammo or reloading supplies. The training would cover suicide prevention, we lose about 25,000 a year to gun suicides, gun safety, don't point it at anyone, and anger management.

A test would be required. After you pass, you'd be allowed to buy guns and ammo.

The gun hobbyists will block even that.

The gun hobbyists are an elderly group though. Over half the NRA membership is of retirement age. Young men today would rather play video games than hunt or target shoot so they aren't going to care about gun ownership.

So all we have to do is wait.



.

Lots of people join gangs out of bad environments where they believe it is necessary. Improve the environment, gangs might just go away.

 

[bomberfox]

If you want laws like Europe or Australia,the US would have to:
1. Repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
2. Overturn at least five SCOTUS decisions.
3. Only allow about 1 in 20 of current firearm owners to own guns.
4. Confiscate about 350 million firearms

Doesnt have to be exactly like europe which is the point of the op.

 

[Rucker61]

Doesnt have to be exactly like europe which is the point of the op.

Then it isn't scientific. Don't compare the US to Europe and their results if you don't want to implement the same restrictions.

 

[bomberfox]

Did you read it? I know you didn’t. it is comparing gun laws and GUN murders not gun laws and ALL murders.

When you compare gun laws vs all murders per capita you see no correlation which is why the anti gun lobby crates a misleading statistic. It take simple ignorant folk like yourself and turn you into a rabid anti gun activist

Doesnt have to.

 

[Rich2018]

If you want laws like Europe or Australia,the US would have to:
1. Repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
2. Overturn at least five SCOTUS decisions.
3. Only allow about 1 in 20 of current firearm owners to own guns.
4. Confiscate about 350 million firearms

1.Yes
2. Says who (other than you). Why wouldn't 1. simply make those SC rulings null and void ?
3. A figure you just pulled out of your @ss. Of the LEGAL gun owners, what in European gun control laws, would stop them owning a gun ?
4. Yes.

 

[bomberfox]

Then it isn't scientific. Don't compare the US to Europe and their results if you don't want to implement the same restrictions.

Yes it is scientific lol! It shows what could lead to those types of environments. Europeans are not some ubermenschen, they just have a different environment.

We go from the example and compromise from there

 

[rahl]

How do we know you or anybody else is not purchasing the gun to commit suicide? It is merely a number of days, I've previously suggested as 10 days. There are only 5 states, plus DC, that even have any waiting period of 3 days (or time to approve background check) to 10 days. Hence the need for a fed law on waiting period.

a waiting period to purchase a firearm is a direct violation of the US constitution.

 

[bomberfox]

Psst: there is no AK15.

Except that NFA 1934 restricts bazooka ownership, and SCOTUS affirmed that classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.


“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).

Multi-shot firearms in existence at ratification:

Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718
Cookson repeater, 1690
Lorenzoni repeating pistol, 1680
Kalthoff repeater, 1658
Snaphaunce revolver, 1598

Electronic communication and data storage devices in existence at ratification:

{null set}

Does this mean that the 1st and 4th Amendment protections don’t apply to your cell phone?

To say the puckle gun is even close to an automatic is ridiculous.

 

[Rich2018]

a waiting period to purchase a firearm is a direct violation of the US constitution.

No it's not

It's not in way way a violation.

 

[rahl]

No it's not

of course it is. Directly violates the 2nd amendment.

It's not in way way a violation.

it quite demonstrably is. Nowhere in the US constitution does it permit the govn't to require you to wait for a period of days in order to exercise a right. In fact, it quite specifically precludes the govn't from doing so.