Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

[Seli]

8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Sweet geez, 1500 acid attacks? Holy shit!

And UK police and lawmakers seem to move to limit it. I assume the rise might be related to the crack-down on knives?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5d38c003-c54a-4513-a369-f9eae0d52f91

Data up to 2016, I belief 2017 was worse.

Quote

The UK has one of the highest recorded rates of violent acid attacks in the world.

The figures show that after a 10-year decline, they surged between 2012 and 2016 by more than 500%. Just 73 were recorded in 2012; four years later, they hit a high of 469.

...

“In many regions of the world, most attacks relate to gender violence,” said Shah. “These attacks are often linked to rejected sexual advances, or marriage proposals.”

“However, this does not appear to be the case in the UK.”

When it comes to suspects, men have consistently made up the majority, accounting for nearly three quarters over the whole of the last 15 years, and 77% in 2016. The proportion of female suspects has collapsed from around 20% ten years ago to just 2% last year, while the proportion of unknown suspects has doubled in the last 10 years to 20%.

...

Police recorded 284 ‘domestic incident’ related acid attacks in the 15-year period from 2002-16 – just 11% of the violent acid attack total.

This low rate, coupled with a decline in the average age of suspects to 21, suggests that acid violence is increasingly gang related, according to Dr Harding.

“A lot of it is youth criminality more than things occurring in a domestic setting,” he said.

 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Seli said:

The UK has one of the highest recorded rates of violent acid attacks in the world.

The figures show that after a 10-year decline, they surged between 2012 and 2016 by more than 500%. Just 73 were recorded in 2012; four years later, they hit a high of 469.

This is easily the weirdist thing I've read in a good while.  WTF is going on?  Kids these days... Are Clockwork Orange gangs running rampant?  I recall a Sopranos episode where AJ was pressured into "acid-ing" some kid's toes.  (Assume acid-ing isn't the correct terminology.  Really don't wanna know what is.)

[Fragile Bird]

12 hours ago, unpaid comintern said:

statistically speaking, america actually has one of the lowest gun related deaths per square mile than any developed nation, so

This is so stupid there should be a special award for it, like a Darwin for writing. If it were written to be funny, you failed, because the stupidity overwhelms any humour.

[BigFatCoward]

Acid attacks in the UK are incredibly rare. I've been an operational police officer for 12 of the last 17 years and have never been on duty when one has happened. 

[Werthead]

On 16/02/2018 at 7:14 PM, SerHaHa said:

I say society, because places like the UK, whose citizens love to congratulate themselves on the lack of "gun violence", have PLENTY of other types of violent, and lethal assualts on other people.  In fact you're far less likely to be the victim of a  violent crime in Canada than the UK, yet Canada has a rate of firearm ownership 1/2 the USA, a HUGE number of guns, 15 million plus in a nation of  35 million.  Meanwhile, the UK has had what, 1500 acid attacks in London alone since 2015, averaging well over 2 per day in 2017?  Add in 37,000 stabbings in 2017 as well - violence is a massive problem the world over.  It's just that violence in America more frequently = dead people due to firearms.

Canada's proportional crime stats are somewhat worse than the UK's (the absolute figures are mostly worse because we've got three times the population, but nowhere near big as you'd expect). You are 33% more likely to be murdered in the Canada than in the UK and 44% more likely to be shot dead (per million people), although the latter figure may be seen as very low given that Canada has shitloads of guns and we have very few.

1500 acid attacks is the five-year total from 2011 to the end of 2016.

There has been an alarming rise in knife crime in the UK in the last couple of years after several years of long decline. To put this in perspective, there were 80 fatal stabbings in 2017 in London, out of 135 murders total, compared to 300 in New York City (which itself was a 70-year low), which is comparable in population. So whilst there are issues in London, they still fall far short of the United States.

In addition, policing funding has become heavily politicised in the UK. Acid, knife and terrorism incidents are issues that Britain has dealt with for decades and has always kept a reasonably tight lid on them. However, the Conservative government has slashed police funding in the UK since 2010 with the loss of over 20,000 front-line police officers, including many in community services who are at the sharp end of liaising with poor and crime-ridden communities (from where a lot of sources are gained which help stop this kind of criminal act in its infancy).

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

This is so stupid there should be a special award for it, like a Darwin for writing. If it were written to be funny, you failed, because the stupidity overwhelms any humour.

He's pointing out the extent of the mental gymnastics required to support a but mah guns position.

[Ice Queen]

On 2/17/2018 at 1:03 AM, SerHaHa said:

1 - Yes, just saying something "mean" can be a violent crime in the UK, so you make a valid point,  but based off the 37,000 stabbings and thousands of acid attacks across the UK in 2017, the, I'm not in left field by any means.

2- You're incorrect.  There are millions of handguns, and at least 500,000 magazine fed assault type semi autos like the AR15, Sig PE90/Swiss Arms, CZ858 (looks like an AK variant but has a different system, same caliber, effect is the same), and so forth.  Yes, there are restrictions on transport, storage, and ranges for the handguns (and not the majority of assault weapons which fall into NON restricted class now), but again, they are STILL IN POSSESSION of pretty much anyone who wished to do a few hours of classroom work and fill out a 4 page form.

This is my point - feel good laws with "restrictions" and "rules" make NO difference with a determined or mentally ill attacker.  Adding more of these types of restrictions is NOT going to stop the violent use of firearms in the numbers we're seeing. 

 

BAN.  THEM.  ALL.  Just like the mad king wanted.

Mental illness is only part of it. Women and minorities suffer mental illness at roughly the same rates as men. Yet (by and large) they're not committing these acts. Mass murder using guns is almost the exclusive purview of white males.

Why?

The problem is guns.

[Werthead]

53 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Mental illness is only part of it. Women and minorities suffer mental illness at roughly the same rates as men. Yet (by and large) they're not committing these acts. Mass murder using guns is almost the exclusive purview of white males.

Why?

The problem is guns.

More specifically, the American fetishisation and glorification of the gun. For Americans, especially relatively poor white males who used to believe their ethnicity, gender and masculinity would give them a leg-up on everyone else (to the point they could neglect formal education), owning and using a gun makes them feel powerful and strong at a time when it's become clear that other types of people are now (or in danger of) getting equal treatment to them. The treatment of the gun as a symbol of "freedom" rather than simply a utilitarian tool (as in much the rest of the world) is also a major issue. For other countries without that tradition and mythologising of the weapon, it's been much easier to abandon its use.

[Ice Queen]

13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

More specifically, the American fetishisation and glorification of the gun. For Americans, especially relatively poor white males who used to believe their ethnicity, gender and masculinity would give them a leg-up on everyone else (to the point they could neglect formal education), owning and using a gun makes them feel powerful and strong at a time when it's become clear that other types of people are now (or in danger of) getting equal treatment to them. The treatment of the gun as a symbol of "freedom" rather than simply a utilitarian tool (as in much the rest of the world) is also a major issue. For other countries without that tradition and mythologising of the weapon, it's been much easier to abandon its use.

Equality feels like oppression? They're losing their privileged place in society and they can't handle it. So their answer isn't to get more education and training to better compete economically,  or not treat their wives like dirt. It's to shoot up schools full of children, all because they have low self esteem and want everything handed to them on a silver platter. Poor babies.

Maybe I should be more specific and say it's conservative white males committing these mass murders. I could be wrong, but in recent memory has their been one committed by a man who identifies as a liberal? 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

38 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Equality feels like oppression? They're losing their privileged place in society and they can't handle it. So their answer isn't to get more education and training to better compete economically,  or not treat their wives like dirt. It's to shoot up schools full of children, all because they have low self esteem and want everything handed to them on a silver platter. Poor babies.

Maybe I should be more specific and say it's conservative white males committing these mass murders. I could be wrong, but in recent memory has their been one committed by a man who identifies as a liberal? 

 

Not sure if that characterization really fits the average perpetrator of a school shooting. Those are mostly mentally disturbed teenage boys with narcissistic/anti-social tendencies. Not working class white men who are facing emasculation because their local coal mine closed down leaving them without job prospects compared to better educated minorities, as you and Werthead were broadly suggesting.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Mental illness is only part of it. Women and minorities suffer mental illness at roughly the same rates as men. Yet (by and large) they're not committing these acts. Mass murder using guns is almost the exclusive purview of white males.

Why?

The problem is guns.

I am just looking in on this thread for the first time. I agree that the problem is guns, but the gender part of your argument is not a very good one because "mental illness" as a whole is way too broad a term. There are several hundred different possible "mental illnesses" in the DSM (American psychiatrists' manual), the great majority of which have no connection with violence of any kind. In terms of gender, though, the few conditions that are occasionally associated with violence are more common in men than women. The main diagnosis associated with violence is Antisocial Personality Disorder ("psychopaths"). The prevalence of that problem is three times higher in men than it is in women.

I am pointing this out because I am trying to make your argument for gun control better. Using data from other nations showing that mental illness is as prevalent there as in the USA is a good argument. The gender correlation is not a good argument because those on the "other side" can easily dismiss this since the particular mental illnesses that are more prevalent in men than women do show a higher possible correlation with violence.

[Ice Queen]

25 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I am just looking in on this thread for the first time. I agree that the problem is guns, but the gender part of your argument is not a very good one because "mental illness" as a whole is way too broad a term. There are several hundred different possible "mental illnesses" in the DSM (American psychiatrists' manual), the great majority of which have no connection with violence of any kind. In terms of gender, though, the few conditions that are occasionally associated with violence are more common in men than women. The main diagnosis associated with violence is Antisocial Personality Disorder ("psychopaths"). The prevalence of that problem is three times higher in men than it is in women.

I am pointing this out because I am trying to make your argument for gun control better. Using data from other nations showing that mental illness is as prevalent there as in the USA is a good argument. The gender correlation is not a good argument because those on the "other side" can easily dismiss this since the particular mental illnesses that are more prevalent in men than women do show a higher possible correlation with violence.

Thanks! I was just throwing that out there for consideration,  but there may be a different tact to take. I haven't taken the time to properly research this, obviously. 

Other countries have gun ownership, even if it's not at the rates in the US. However, they have much lower rates of mass murders than we do, even as their rates of mental illness are the same. 

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure if that characterization really fits the average perpetrator of a school shooting. Those are mostly mentally disturbed teenage boys with narcissistic/anti-social tendencies. Not working class white men who are facing emasculation because their local coal mine closed down leaving them without job prospects compared to better educated minorities, as you and Werthead were broadly suggesting.

Las Vegas?

[Free Northman Reborn]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Las Vegas?

Paddock was by all accounts a wealthy man who had achieved considerable success in his career. Again, not someone whose livelihood is threatened by better educated minorities.

But I'm not trying to suggest that NO mass shooters fit your description. Just that the cases appear to be quite diverse. One of the most deadly mass shootings of recent years was perpetrated by an Asian-American kid. Not because he is Asian American. But because he had mental issues. Then we had Adam Lanza, who was autistic, if I recall. And the Columbine guys, at least one of whom was a clear socio-path.

So no, I don't agree that disaffected white men, threatened by the equal rights of minorities, is the main cause of mass shootings.

[Yukle]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So no, I don't agree that disaffected white men, threatened by the equal rights of minorities, is the main cause of mass shootings.

Yes, this makes sense.

It's entirely possible - call me crazy - that each one happens for a different reason. Literally the only thing that they have in common is that the shooter had a gun. All other factors are variable.

[Werthead]

20 hours ago, Yukle said:

Yes, this makes sense.

It's entirely possible - call me crazy - that each one happens for a different reason. Literally the only thing that they have in common is that the shooter had a gun. All other factors are variable.

Hmm. Sounds like headway might be made if the one factor they had in common was addressed then.

[Yukle]

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

Hmm. Sounds like headway might be made if the one factor they had in common was addressed then.

Now you're just being ridiculous. If you take the guns, where do you draw the line? Actually fair voting districts? A working healthcare system?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Now you're just being ridiculous. If you take the guns, where do you draw the line? Actually fair voting districts? A working healthcare system?

Quit trying to give us good ideas! We can't have nice things in Murika! 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 2/18/2018 at 10:18 AM, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Las Vegas?

Vegas serves as a good example of how little we react to these mass shootings. In the wake of Vegas it seemed like almost everyone agreed that the least we could do was ban bump stocks, the device that allows semi-automatic rifles to mimic the fire of fully automatic rifles. 

Over four months later, they're still legal in most places. 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 2/19/2018 at 3:05 AM, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Equality feels like oppression? 

 

Yes it does. When you start from a position of relative advantage and you are forced to give up that advantage unwillingly then it most definitely feels like oppression.

It's all very well for us progressives to be proclaiming the view that improving equality across as many demographics as possible has a substantial benefit for everyone. But unless you convince the demographic that is losing it's historical advantage that they will actually be OK (especially the people at the lower end of that demographic, who feel like they've never had any advantage even when their group was on top of the pile) and to welcome the change, then it is obvious and natural that they will feel threatened and act in the way that you would expect any threatened population (or individual) to act.

In developing policies to facilitate equality, was their a failure to take account of the relativistic effects of these policies and thus predict and deal with what seems to be a pretty predictable reaction to the changes that have been taking place since at least the 1960s?