Off Topic Poker Forums

Steppin,
It's really not hard, but you do have to know about something about your area. I'll concede that for most people it would take longer, because they'd have to find out which places they need to go to.
I'd say most people don't know which bars in rough neighborhoods are drug bars, hell the only reason I do is because of the nature of my work.
You find a bar that has a lot of drugs going through it, I 100% guarantee you can pick up a hot gun there too.

From where do you think the dealer at the bar got the gun?






There are rules to carrying a gun, but knives over a certain length are outright banned. I might in fact rather have the knife than the gun, but a little pocket knife isn't adequate.

Ron Paul statement

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1994:security-and-self-goverance&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

Ron Paul statement

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1994:security-and-self-goverance&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

As always very entertaining.

Ron Paul statement

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1994:security-and-self-goverance&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

Ron Paul

I know this thread kinda died but found this stat to refute those worried about armed civilians actually causing more deaths:



"The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3."

I know this thread kinda died but found this stat to refute those worried about armed civilians actually causing more deaths:



"The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3."

The primary argument against guns is that fewer people will have access to guns in the first place. That said..

I would be very surprised if you can compare those two numbers. It seems very likely that civilians are less likely to get involved when a lot of people have already been killed.

The statistics you are looking for is how many got shot when an armed civilian was/wasn't at the crime scene.

My roommate in college was "huge" on gun rights - he open carried even for a grocery store run. He eventually got his concealed carry permit, and from then on he was packing and no longer "scared" civilians with his gun blatantly showing. It is the people like him that I want carrying a gun in public, he would limit deaths by a magnitude if there was such a shooting

You become much harder to beat up when you are throwing punches back at the aggressor. I will even venture to say that only one responsible gun owner in that movie theater who is carrying at the time, had half a clue as to what was going on, and was able to get to his/her weapon, the death total would have been cut by more than half.

You become much harder to beat up when you are throwing punches back at the aggressor. I will even venture to say that only one responsible gun owner in that movie theater who is carrying at the time, had half a clue as to what was going on, and was able to get to his/her weapon, the death total would have been cut by more than half.

Why not fix the problem instead of treating the symptoms?

Why not fix the problem instead of treating the symptoms?

Exactly. Give everybody a gun.
And give this coward the death-penalty.
Stop playing tiddly-winks with criminals.

Exactly. Give everybody a gun.

Something tells me that's not what Improva meant....

Stop playing tiddly-winks with criminals.

I think you underestimate the torture that is tiddly-winks.

I think you underestimate the torture that is tiddly-winks.

Haven't played since I was a little kid. Beer Pong was the university version, right?

Graph for amateur scientists

Why not fix the problem instead of treating the symptoms?

And what exactly do you see the problem as?

And what exactly do you see the problem as?

Crime rates.

I would've said easy access to guns.


Saying that someone else in the crowd having a gun would've stopped anything is nonsense I already addressed.

Crime rates.

Which has everything to do with poverty and socioeconomic dynamics, and very little to do with gun ownership.

Most crimes are over:
1) Money
2) Drugs
3) Women
4) Vulnerability

Very few crimes are random.
People don't often steal an 84 Honda with 200k miles, they steal a new Cadillac. The majority of robberies are to steal cash/jewelry to support a drug habit.

Most murders are over drugs/money, a very small percentage are crimes of passion, and even fewer are by stupidity ( drunk driving, throwing a TV out of an 8 story window,etc).

The elderly and mentally retarded are deliberately targeted because they're an "easy target".

Crime rates.

Nice. I agree somewhat. .
But "Crime Rates" are just statistics, not the "fix" for violent criminals.

With that said, I still maintain that Denmark (6million) and the US (314million) is an Apples-to-Oranges comparison.
It is like comparing a townhall meeting with a 75,000 person concert. Very different.

Here is a Denmark Crime and Safety Report. Some possible correlations worth noting. I am actually finding Denmark to be an interesting country to study. Very different system, for sure.


Same thing with the Poverty Line comparison:
You said 1/6 poverty (16.7%) in the US....and suggested the "crime rate".
".....1/6th of the US population lives below the poverty threshold. Maybe that is why the crime rate in the US is insane? "
The Poverty-Line number I see for the US is 15.1% (2010).
I see 13.4% (2011) in Denmark. Why? Crime rate (or vice-versa)? (as you suggested for the US)


EDIT: the other possibility that has been disccussed is a better education. But as someone noted, this guy had a very good education -- and federal grants paying for it. He is/was a very intelligent guy, who mapped the brain of some bird, and was studying the musculature of hummingbirds. It always amazes me the super-smart people who turn into killers.

Nice. I agree somewhat. .
But "Crime Rates" are just statistics, not the "fix" for violent criminals.

With that said, I still maintain that Denmark (6million) and the US (314million) is an Apples-to-Oranges comparison.
It is like comparing a townhall meeting with a 75,000 person concert. Very different.

Here is a Denmark Crime and Safety Report. Some possible correlations worth noting. I am actually finding Denmark to be an interesting country to study. Very different system, for sure.


Same thing with the Poverty Line comparison:
You said 1/6 poverty (16.7%) in the US....and suggested the "crime rate".
".....1/6th of the US population lives below the poverty threshold. Maybe that is why the crime rate in the US is insane? "
The number I see for the US is 15.1% (2010).
I see 13.4% (2011) in Denmark. Why? Crime rate? (as you suggested for the US)

Feel free to compare the US with the EU.

Which has everything to do with poverty and socioeconomic dynamics, and very little to do with gun ownership.

Most crimes are over:
1) Money
2) Drugs
3) Women
4) Vulnerability

Very few crimes are random.
People don't often steal an 84 Honda with 200k miles, they steal a new Cadillac. The majority of robberies are to steal cash/jewelry to support a drug habit.

Most murders are over drugs/money, a very small percentage are crimes of passion, and even fewer are by stupidity ( drunk driving, throwing a TV out of an 8 story window,etc).

The elderly and mentally retarded are deliberately targeted because they're an "easy target".

If the crime rates drop the "argument" for owning a gun disappears.

If the crime rates drop the "argument" for owning a gun disappears.

not unless violent crime rates drop to zero. I should still be able to choose to prepare for the eventuality if it exists.

Feel free to compare the US with the EU.

No. I will stay with Denmark. It is the country you have promoted as a model (that you believe scales to the US). If we go with the whole EU, we are opening a whole other can-of-worms.
.....But I believe you have said "Scandinavian countries" before. Feel free to add another model from any of these countries. How about Norway? 1 year anniversary of 77 person massacre. They have very strict gun-control, right?

Keep in mind, I do agree with the direction of "crime rates". But again, that is just stats, not the "fix".

No. I will stay with Denmark. It is the country you have promoted as a model (that you believe scales to the US). If we go with the whole EU, we are opening a whole other can-of-worms.
.....But I believe you have said "scandinavian countries" before. Feel free to add another model from any of these countries.

Either you can compare to the whole of EU (which is very similar to Denmark) or you can assume that the Danish model actually scales.

Either you can compare to the whole of EU (which is very similar to Denmark) or you can assume that the Danish model actually scales.

Total Crime Victims (stats):
US 21.1% ......15th of 20 countries
Denmark 23% ....... 10th of 20
AND ANOTHER HOLY CRAP MOMENT..... Australia 30%......1st of 20
I never saw that coming. Wow!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims


.

It always amazes me the super-smart people who turn into killers.

That is because you vastly underestimate the effect mental illness can have on someone's thought processes. The exceptionally intelligent are also exceptionally susceptible to mental illnesses like Bipolar disorder, and particularly paranoid schizophrenia. Ted Kaszinski(?) the actual unabomber may be a prime example of this. While the vast majority of the mentally ill are non-violent, a few, particularly when they have access to extremely efficient weaponry can create horrific destruction.