Germany Train Attack

[Xant]

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
 
0 deaths, terrorist had an assault rifle and a pistol, 2 civilians injured.

Meanwhile, Afghan with an axe injured 5 people.

So how does the gun ban make a difference again? The rhetoric was born dead from every angle.

[Admerius]

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
 
0 deaths, terrorist had an assault rifle and a pistol, 2 civilians injured.

Meanwhile, Afghan with an axe injured 5 people.

So how does the gun ban make a difference again? The rhetoric was born dead from every angle.

Xant you're doing it all wrong...
They are so oppressed that they don't have access to proper firearms training.
If we only train them to use guns then they will be de-radicalized because we're so inclusive and tolerant.

Oh wait...
https://www.rt.com/usa/314034-petraeus-nusra-front-isis/
Now we only need to train the domestic ones as well.

[Tydeus]

In general I'm in favor of Gun restrictions, so I was rather surprised when I saw the 2014 Global Terrorism Index which actually breaks down weapons used in terror attacks by each region. Only 10% of terror attacks in North America and Europe involve guns. Not to mention many of these attacks would have likely just been carried out through another means. Unfortunately, it's rather hard to find an analysis that does this while also linking it to numbers of fatalities.

Of course, that's only terrorist attacks. Homicides and general gun violence is a different story altogether which, in the US's case at least, is still more than enough to warrant heavier gun restrictions. This only means terror attacks are a fairly poor reason to introduce restrictions.

[Oberyn]

I'm wary of most statistics on american gun "violence" since they usually incorporate suicides in their numbers. Around 60% of "deaths due to firearms" are suicides.

[Xant]

Of course, that's only terrorist attacks. Homicides and general gun violence is a different story altogether which, in the US's case at least, is still more than enough to warrant heavier gun restrictions. This only means terror attacks are a fairly poor reason to introduce restrictions.

An entirely different subject, but it's still debatable.

http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/another-school-shooting-in-murrica-(oregon-edition)/msg1173014/#msg1173014

Demographics are the problem, not the tools used.

[Tydeus]

An entirely different subject, but it's still debatable.

http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/another-school-shooting-in-murrica-(oregon-edition)/msg1173014/#msg1173014

Demographics are the problem, not the tools used.

Not to blow that off, but I wasn't persuaded by that information the first time I saw it because it's only correlative. Show me a few studies with a before and after where basically nothing else changed, then I'll concede the point.

My stance for the US is purely pragmatic(or perhaps pessimistic). We're not going to round up all the guns and get rid of them(can't say I agree with the idea anyway), and we're not going to just resolve all the reasons why people commit homicide. Thus the simplest way to have at least a mild impact should be to better regulate who has guns. And my suggestion for how you do that, is to require gun owners to have a bi-yearly mental state examination or something of the sort. Mental health issues are viewed as a stigma in the US anyway, thus this serves two purposes for us.

[Angantyr]

Maybe something akin to a pilot's license for gun owners, with compulsory training and gun discipline, could work in those states that has a problematic gun culture.

[Beauchamp]

Alright, this is by me poorly translated summary report from the Wurzburk press conference that was running around Czech internetz, I find it really fitting so I post it here

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Press conference to the train attack at Würzburk could actually be a funny one if one shouldn't rather be afraid what the future will bring instead...

so:
Original presumption that Afghan adolescent arrived into Germany 2 years ago is refuted by a new version - he crossed borders at Passau on 30th of June 2015. At 12.20 federal ministr of interior de Maiziére refutes speculations that the teenager actually was Pakistani (he says there is no reason to believe so, there are only indications that he really is Afghan (like a letter to his family, death of his friend if Afghanistan that "made" him to attack the Chinese family). Police then brings the message, that there is Pakistani ID among his belonging, they also add that the teenager looks rather like somebody at his thirties.

in other words:
More than one year after the "refugee" crossed the border of a country that has the law and the order as one of its highest values, where laws are respected more than in any other country, nobody from German officials knows: who the person was, where and how did he cross the borders, where did he came from, how old was he or if he was even threatened by any danger in his home country. But after his death they know for sure, that he deadly "threatened" couple of people while two of them are still in the hospital fighting for their lives; and if they survive they will bear consequences of the attack until they die.

[Angantyr]

they also add that the teenager looks rather like somebody at his thirties.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

The number of children seeking asylum in Sweden has exploded over the last ten years, presumably because children are granted asylum much quicker than adults, and Swedish authorities don't verify the age of these "children." Refugees are allowed to bring their entire family to Sweden once they get residency status.

Other countries have been successful in using various methods to establish the age of people claiming to be children, but this practice is considered invasive and "bad" in Sweden these days. Recently, a survey in Denmark showed that 72% of asylum-seeker "children" were actually adults. The fact that Denmark carries out these controls could explain why only 818 children sought asylum there last year, compared to Sweden's 7,049. Finland and Norway also conduct age tests, and estimate that 66% of those tested are over 18.

In September 2014, social commentator Merit Wager wrote:

"That there should be such a huge discrepancy between Sweden and other Nordic countries when it comes to the age of unaccompanied 'children' seems highly unlikely."

Wager quoted Anders Thomas, who worked for the Immigration Service for eight years:

"It was a bizarre experience, to sit there and investigate '16-year-olds' who were obviously closer to my age. Back then, you had the option to do age verification; that is not the case today, when pretty much all the people who claim to be children are let in. What happens when these grown men start high school along with real 16-17-year-olds?"

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6190/sweden-refugee-children

Kristianstadsbladet was even insane enough to write an article about one of the refugee men, holding him up as an 'inspiration' and an 'idol' to the other children in the Swedish school, 'the fastest 14-year-old', though the article seems to have been pulled after public ridicule.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Xant]

Not to blow that off, but I wasn't persuaded by that information the first time I saw it because it's only correlative. Show me a few studies with a before and after where basically nothing else changed, then I'll concede the point.

There have been before/after "experiments" in US towns, and the results have been the same. In fact, sometimes crime and homicides increase after guns are banned. And how is it "only correlative"? The data clearly shows that guns aren't the problem by comparing states and countries with different gun laws, and finding no correlation between gun laws and amount of homicides. It's common sense, too. US has more homicides than European countries because it's a cultural melting pot, and has many ghettos.

[Tydeus]

There have been before/after "experiments" in US towns, and the results have been the same. In fact, sometimes crime and homicides increase after guns are banned. And how is it "only correlative"? The data clearly shows that guns aren't the problem by comparing states and countries with different gun laws, and finding no correlation between gun laws and amount of homicides. It's common sense, too. US has more homicides than European countries because it's a cultural melting pot, and has many ghettos.

Because 50 states and a couple dozen countries is a relatively small pool for how complex societies/communities are. There is a huge degree of variance between each state. What are the factors that allow for a community to pass gun control laws? Can both high crime and low crime + progressive population lead to gun control? I'd imagine so, but this is the type of thing that will just obscure the data. So without proper controls, you're taking a risk by drawing conclusions one way or the other from this type of data.

Regardless of whether or not this data had convinced me, you won't convince enough people for it to matter without better data because it's just too easy to imagine a scenario where if you just took a gun away from the culprit, you would have a less severe situation.

[Xant]

Because 50 states and a couple dozen countries is a relatively small pool for how complex societies/communities are. There is a huge degree of variance between each state. What are the factors that allow for a community to pass gun control laws? Can both high crime and low crime + progressive population lead to gun control? I'd imagine so, but this is the type of thing that will just obscure the data. So without proper controls, you're taking a risk by drawing conclusions one way or the other from this type of data.

Regardless of whether or not this data had convinced me, you won't convince enough people for it to matter without better data because it's just too easy to imagine a scenario where if you just took a gun away from the culprit, you would have a less severe situation.

What you can conclude from the data is that you can't say guns are the problem and reason for the amount of homicides, and that's the point. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming that different gun laws would result in less homicides.

[Tydeus]

What you can conclude from the data is that you can't say guns are the problem and reason for the amount of homicides, and that's the point. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming that different gun laws would result in less homicides.

Again, I don't think you can conclude anything other than that the data is inconclusive. Still maintains the validity of your next point though.

[Xant]

Again, I don't think you can conclude anything other than that the data is inconclusive. Still maintains the validity of your next point though.

If the data is "inconclusive", that means you can conclude you can't say guns are the problem and the reason for the amount of homicides. That doesn't mean it proves the pro-gun lobby right, it just means it proves the common argument of the anti-gun lobby "just look at US homicide rates" wrong. Even the most favorable reading of those statistics for the anti-gun lobby is at best "inconclusive", i.e., not supporting their argument, and at worst it completely counters it.

[Thomek]

US is in a nice club of countries when it gets to intentional homicide rate:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Point is, they shouldn't be there. They are so much richer, stable and developed than the rest of the countries there, that it doesn't make any sense at all.
Reason is of course easy access to guns, of which around 75% of their homicides can be attributed to. (2012:  8,897 firearm related murders)

Now, how fucking thick you have to be, to understand that having lots and lots of guns makes it more likely to use one? It's a quick, effective and safe tool to ensure murder for the killer. It's much less messy than using a knife, especially now that DNA goes everywhere. It's also way easier for suicide than to hang yourself or other slow, painful or unsure methods that require planning and meticulous execution. (Buy, get medicine, be guaranteed alone for hours or whatnot. Many people change their minds or are unable to successfully do it when they are in that mood. A gun is a press of a button. )

I can kind of understand it if you are a criminal, or under high risk of violent criminal activity for some reason. Or if you simply love guns. (Guns are fun, I shot the G3 and mp5 in the army, was even a decent shooter.)

I understand the country is flooded with guns, and it would be a long undertaking to reduce the amount, but you have to start somewhere. And that is, to at the least, ensure that if people want guns, they have to be a member of a club, take a shooting exam, and know how to use and store their firearms. Maybe even a mental checkup/doctors paper every 4-5 years. It really isn't too much to ask, similar things are required for drivers.

The 2nd amendment was made in a completely different time, refers to a regulated militia, where guns were large and slow firing muskets, not something you stuff in your pants.