• Judge proposes blunting knives to reduce knife crime.
    60 replies, posted
You're entirely right when it comes to knife and acid crime and i agree completely.
[citation needed]
Oh I know, obviously its pretty silly i'm just trying to make it clear how many ways you could make a cutting blade with basically anything Same reason they do this https://mattsbibleblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/20140609-132655-48415495.jpg Because god said "let there be spikes and then the bums will get a job" They don't care about truly fixing the problem. They only want to waste money making it look like they want to.
the actual fuck
https://www.safehome.org/wp-content/themes/safehome/assets-gun/img/Gun-Laws-vs-Gun-Deaths--A06.jpg cdc.gov. Pretty clear correlation (which does not equal causation) on firearm laws vs firearm deaths. Of course the next question is "How many of these prevented deaths still would have happened" aka in essence "how do gun laws affect general homicide/suicide rates." aka the substitution effect or smth A reduction in gun availability would cause some weapon substitution and probably little change in overall robbery and assault rates-but the homicide rate would be reduced. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1044071?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents AKA less gun murders with stricter laws, other levels of violent crime remained the same  the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual increase in firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23%), but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates.https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/effects-of-missouris-repeal-of-its-handgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf AKA people still kill as much with non-firearms, but on top of that, gun murders increased because of lenient gun laws. Therefore, it can be concluded that as firearms become more plentiful in an area, violent crime will increase in that area.  http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf AKA violent crime increases together with gun ownership. Last paper gives several reasons, all of which are inadvertently related to how many people own guns, and how they are registered. Like I said, focusing on the weapons works in some cases, but not when the substitution effect would balance it out, which it does not when it comes to guns.
with the U.S.'s gun culture regulating the shit out of guns is just going to give garage machinists and chemists incentive to build completely unregulated weaponry on potentially mass scale. Also the study does not take into account poverty or suicide. a massively armed populace also keeps the government in line with the populations interests so it doesn't do things like putting spikes on the floor to deter homeless people from sitting there. The biggest threat to the U.S. government is its population and I'd prefer something to keep the U.S. government in line than nothing at all.
Sources I cited says substitution effect doesn't happen with guns on the scale you're describing. The government doesn't care that the populace is armed, that's pretty much one of the last things on their "things to consider" when fucking over your lives, which they already do on a daily basis.
He asked: “But why we do need eight-inch or ten-inch kitchen knives with points? “Butchers and fishmongers do, but how often, if at all, does a domestic chef use the point of an eight-inch or ten-inch knife? Rarely, if at all." Personally I use one daily, and an 8 inch chef's knife is a fairly standard staple knife to have and use in the kitchen if you're cooking for yourself or your family every day, which I assume most people do. I suppose people could live without having a point on their knife, but that really doesn't make them less deadly, they're still sharp where it counts and you may not be able to stab someone but you sure as hell can cut someone, so what's the point of this?
Well lets take a look at another cornerstone of 'murican life: Beer. Remember how well banning that turned out? Very well actually, for the people still selling and producing it of course. Literally the only thing the U.S. government has to worry about is the incredibly well armed populace. With shale we no longer have to care about the middle east, canada is a great buffer from northern attack and the southern border is guarded by an inhospitable desert all while having the worlds best navy ensuring safety from anything the rest of the world can throw at us. the only threat to the U.S. is if the government buys itself a big ol' sack of insanity from the insanity store and chows down. On the note of insanity trump certainly is but killing a country as prosperous as the U.S. is a team effort that takes multiple batshit presidents and congresses. The republicans are very well aware of how despised they are right now and aren't willing to put in their share of the work for fear of you know, being drawn and quartered. After all some assclown did try to kill a bunch of republican house reps at a baseball game last summer and I'm sure that's still fresh in their minds.
"Acknowledging that any blade could cause injury, the judge pointed out “slash wounds are rarely fatal.” That is the argument the judge is making, anyway.
I am absolutely certain that I would still be able to stab you with it, it's just a matter of applying enough force. If it's got some form of vague point-like end to it, you can stab people with it.
Assault Knife Weapons Ban
I'd rather they have knifes then turn to things like acid attacks.
Yeah I’m going to go ahead and say that story is straight up bullshit. There isn’t any explanation or defined factors I could find which explain how “stringency scores” are determined. On that list, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine should have some of the lowest possible rankings if there was any form of consistency. To my knowledge, there are no state laws in New Hampshire which place any additional limitations other than what is federally mandated. You don’t even need a concealed carry permit anymore. I believe Maine and Vermont are similarly very lax with their gun laws with the exception of constitutional carry which only New Hampshire has at the moment. LOL scratch that, anyone who is allowed to own a handgun is allowed to carry it in these states. There’s no stupid limitations on what we’re allowed to own, how much we can own, no waiting periods, nothing. Yet all 3 of these states are commonly cited as the top 3 safest in the country to live in. Then you have states with no gun control which suck on the homicide per capita rate like Montana and Arizona, or states with restrictions up the ass which have terrible amounts of gun crime at worst like Illinois and Michigan, or it barely has any effect at best like California which is only lower by like 1.4 per capita in 2016. Which brings me to another interesting fact; the numbers on that chart are flat out wrong. The most current information I can find from the CDC’s website is from 2016 which clearly shows New Hampshire’s rate at 9.3 and California’s at 7.9. But clearly none of that matters to you considering the last ~8 1/2 times I’ve explained this to you.
"This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260511433515?journalCode=jiva From Canada. So no, focusing on the object will not help, and we're seeing the effects of that in the UK now with this knife crime. Because they focused on guns instead of on what caused crime, now knife crime has become a huge problem. So what do they do? The same ignorant thing they did with guns, ban the tool, and ignore the underlying causes.
I'm so tired of seeing that safehome graph Here's some actual real information on gun deaths in the United states, right from the graph's alleged source, including things like contextual raw numbers of guns deaths to go alongside per capita numbers Never trust anything that gives you a per capita number but not the contextual numbers that go with it. The highest gun deaths per capita on this list is Alaska, at what sounds like an absolutely huge and jaw dropping 23.3, whereas California is sitting at a mere 7.9! That makes California look pretty good in terms of gun deaths, especially considering Alaska has pretty lax gun control and some of the highest ownership in the country But it's incredibly misleading, because while Alaska may have the highest gun deaths per capita in the United States, the actual number is a grand total of 177 deaths in 2016, while California with its 7.9 is sitting at 3,184 deaths, second highest in the nation right behind Texas And as long as I'm on about misleading numbers, most gun death statistics are using more than just gun crime in their numbers. More often than not, there's no distinction made between suicides and homicides, and this has the effect of inflating the numbers and making it look like the gun violence problem in the United States is far worse than it actually is CDC FastStats on suicide for 2015. 22,018 across the country by firearm CDC FastStats on Homicide for 2015. 12,979 across the country by firearm There are some extra numbers about suicide here. I couldn't find a way to gracefully tie them into the post, but I feel like they're incredibly important If you lump those two CDC figures together, it's easy to get a misleading picture of what's happening in the US I was going to use Texas as my next example and expand on how lumping suicides in with homicides can make a place seem more violent than it is, but I couldn't enough sources for more numbers to tie it together to my satisfaction. Some of the things I had still feel important, though, so I'll just dump those and call this post done. Take them with a grain of salt NY Times: Suicide rate soars to 30 year high NY Times: Gun deaths mostly suicides AFSP State fact sheets Data briefs on suicide and homocide in Texas from the DSHS
Simple, just ban philips and pozi drives. Robertson is a bit sharp too so better bin that as well to be safe. Only flat head screw drivers from now on.
They mention the outlier (Aaska) in the source, it's not relevant to the general trend. Alaska may have the highest firearm suicide rate because of its Alaska Native population. The suicide rate among Alaska Natives was about three times that of non-native Alaskan residents from 2003 to 2006. However, factors used to explain Montana’s high rate of suicide – including isolation and alcoholism – may apply to other states as well. Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana also have the lowest population density. The three sources I posted in the form of articles not some easy-to-read graph used gun homicides and violent crimes as a measuring point, not gun suicides. The clear fact of the matter is that, when not considering gun suicides (which they should be to an extent, because substitution effect applies here too, in that people who will commit suicide by gun will not necessarily do it without a gun) into the equation, homicide and violent crime rate still goes up only due to lax gun laws. Which is in the sources I listed. Not so sure why you focused on suicide though since they were only partially relevant in my original sources.
No it did not.
So, you're Australian, what sources do you have? Because 1996, gun massacre, 10 massacres before that, no massacres after that, reduction in gun violence, reduction in gun suicides. What didn't work?
That statement is so simplistic it borders on being retarded. You're not that stupid dude, you should be able to discern what is wrong with it. As for studies, there are a number that have examined the murder rate in Australia rate in Australia following the 1996 Buyback. The general consensus is that the buyback had no effect on our murder rate. The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi established there was no trend break following the buyback. There are others that support the same conclusion and have been posted in previous threads on the topic. Dig them up yourself.
I guess it's worth putting this post to use again, seeing as MORE GUNS vs LESS GUNS has become the topic of the day again
How about we look at how homicides and suicides changed overall compared to gun-related ones? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/217809/847d8903-c37b-4075-849c-ad48fc15182f/image.png So, first off, homicides. Although there was a drop in gun homicides immediately after the 1996 gun laws, the overall rate of homicides remained the same for a year, before experiencing a smaller drop than the drop in gun homicides showing that the substitution effect was in play, and homicides continued to steadily drop regardless, except for the outlier in 2004. Now suicides, gun suicides barely changed at all, they continued declining at the same rate, while overall suicides actually spiked and did not start dropping again until three years later, before continuing on their unsteady path. I don't know about you, but to me this definitely paints a picture of gun access not really affecting the fundamental problems that drive people to suicide or murder.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854 https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf https://www.quora.com/If-gun-laws-dont-prevent-violence-why-is-Australias-gun-violence-rate-so-low-since-they-banned-guns/answer/Anthony-Zarrella?share=06fd12ea&srid=x9Yb
Not agreeing with you = shitposting. Got it.
This is moving to basically a gun debate so I'm not going to say much. But achieving that doesn't necessarily make an action a failure. Being stabbed is generally going to be much better than being attacked by acid, which'll also generally be better than being shot at. You can have both goals of reducing the avg. lethality of crime, and reducing crime itself. It's not either/or.
Nah, just yours.
You mean like the last few decades when we tried banning weapons based on their features, and it didn't do anything to reduce gun violence? You even said earlier that banning knives based on their features wouldn't have any meaningful impact on knife violence, so why are you expecting it to somehow be any different when applied to guns? There's no logic behind this. It's already been clearly demonstrated to have no effect at best in this country due to the assault weapons ban which expired, and we can definitively say it does not work here. So you're right it doesn't matter to me what the "rest of the world" says when it has objectively done nothing to solve our problems. Also no, homicide and violent crime rates do not "only go up only due to lax gun laws". Your earlier claim was that there was a trend or a Which only indicates that violent crimes and homicides may occur more often in some states with less gun laws, but not solely BECAUSE those states have less gun laws as the deciding factor. I gave some examples of states which defy that defined trend of "more gun laws = less violence and vice versa" and your response is: Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire... that sounds like more than just one. And no don't try to blow it off as "just meaningless outliers of a trend" when at least three separate states all with their own populations have shown it is possible to have guns without retarded amounts of violence. "More guns = more violence" is a dumb meme which grossly oversimplifies everything. As for the Brady system, I was wondering on specifics of how their score system works. For example, how many points does a state lose for having permit-less concealed carry? I'm questioning the consistency of the chart because going by how they rank other states, New Hampshire should be near the bottom of that list. And as others have pointed out, they CDC numbers are counting total overall deaths, including suicides which fluff up those statistics by a significant amount. I mean this is the same agency that had legislation passed against it because they were caught red handed trying to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion against gun violence, rather than conducting the research in an honest way.
The important distinction is that yes, banning {X} might reduce "X crime", but we don't care about "knife crime", we care about crime. "We renamed guns to Kablooeys and gun crime dropped to nothing! Mission accomplished."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/world/australia/worst-mass-shooting-margaret-river.html What was that about "no massacres since?" As a matter of fact, there have been 3 other mass shootings, and more than a dozen other massacres in Australia since the gun ban, including 3 arson attacks that each killed 10 or more people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Frankly it also shouldn't matter if someone was burned to death or shot to death, a mass killing is a mass killing, and by not focusing on what causes mass killings you will still experience the substitution effect for them, such as these Australian arsons.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.