London murder rate rises higher than NY City

From the CDC:

• More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking.
• For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness.
• Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
• Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.
• Smoking is a known cause of erectile dysfunction in males.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death.

• Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2
• Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

 

And what gun control proposal do you imagine would have stopped that guy?

 

Maybe just not giving the guns of a crazy person back to his dad?

No guns for crazy people sounds like a pretty reasonable policy.

 

I agree. And I would add: Anyone who goes on social media and says he wants to be a professional school shooter and then showcases his arsenal will have their guns confiscated and be punished for threatening others with bodily harm. And also terminate the employment of the law enforcement agents responsible for disregarding those threats and failing to follow proper protocol. That would send a message to everyone involved in that fuck-up, and to all future fuck-ups. Those advocating the confiscation of guns that hold more than six rounds are delusional in their thinking that the way to approach the problem is to eliminate a tool used by the insane. They learned nothing from the Boston Marathon bombing.

And here's the latest such fuck-up in progress:

From the New York Times

A mother told the police that Mr. Sawyer, who had seemed troubled in the past, had just bought a gun. A friend of the young man also contacted the police: He was talking admiringly of the school massacre in Parkland, Fla., the friend warned, and hinting at sinister plans of his own.

The police soon detained Mr. Sawyer, 18, a former student at Fair Haven Union High School. They said they had found a journal in his car that laid out disturbing plans for a shooting at the high school. “I’m aiming to kill as many as I can,” the journal read. The school resource officer, the journal went on, might have to be shot “point blank” in the head.
. . .
The Vermont Supreme Court said Mr. Sawyer’s acts did not meet the legal standards of the most serious charges against him. To constitute an attempted crime, the justices said, someone would have to not only prepare to commit a crime but take clear steps toward carrying it out.

“An ‘attempt’ under Vermont law requires an intent to commit a crime, coupled with an act that, but for an interruption, would result in the completion of a crime,” three justices wrote. They looked to a 1906 case, in which the Supreme Court found that a prisoner who had obtained 12 hacksaws — but not yet used them to try to saw through the bars of his jail window — could not be convicted of attempting to escape. Mr. Sawyer, they said, “took no action so proximate to the commission of a school shooting as to constitute an attempt.”

He Wrote Disturbing Plans for a School Shooting. But Was That a Crime?
______________________________________________________________________

In other words, they're saying that until they actually see him walking to the school with gun in hand, their hands are tied. In this case, Sawyer specified which school he intended to shoot up, and even specified the school resource officer as one of his definite targets.

So there you have it, one of the stupid reasons people use to question my right to own my handgun. Law enforcement fucks up royally, and instead of assigning blame where blame lies--and calling them to the carpet for their major fuck-up--some people opt to condemn anyone who owns a semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine, or to confiscate every gun that holds more than six rounds. Brilliant!

 

Sounds like a plan. Except places like my state of Oklahoma seem to be going in the opposite direction by relaxing the requirements for gun purchase. The legislature just passed a law dispensing with permits and licenses for gun carry. A dozen other states do the same. Alyson King, a volunteer with the Oklahoma chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in Americ, complained "Permitless carry is an incredibly dangerous policy that will make it easier for people with violent histories to be armed in public."

 

I'm sure your first statement there will resonate well with household members who are present in the roughly one million burglaries each year.

Concerning your second statement, I am absolutely certain that Toggle is not at all interested in your approval or disapproval of his posting style. Just a helpful hint.

 

Wow. Your biting remark really strikes deep. Lmao

 

Yeah, reality sucks, don't it?

 

Your version of it maybe. I'm sorry...lol

Ok, so Toggle isn't here. let's move on

 

You expressed your self centered idea that everyone can have their freedoms of everyday life and their civil liberties without owning any guns. I informed you of the reality that about a million household members are present during home burglaries each year. You think they shouldn't own a gun? That seems to be what you just said.

 

Self-centered my ass. I've heard enough. There are multiple facets to good old fashioned home security. You would have us all believe that we are unsafe for not owning a gun? That's a joke! What about the suicide rate? Or the amount of gun violence, and I mean well meaning people who happen to have a gun, perhaps in their car for example or in their home? There's a whole ration of things that can happen. So that's the gripe. But you seem to think that I'm a total zealot against American freedom and all of this other bologna. Well, I'm more of the opinion that you can have some of that. But the AR-15 has to go.

 

Well, what really happened is that I told you how the million-or-so people who are present during home burglaries each year would interpret your comment that they can have their freedoms of everyday life, and their civil liberties without owning any guns. Surely you don't think that they would agree with your self centered view and assessment of their security concerns and rights. Or do you?

And I've never said that anyone is unsafe for not owning a gun. You're making stuff up. If you don't want to own one, then don't.

 

You're playing games. I don't want to talk to you for an instant longer than I have to and make it my business to sew the seeds of truth as I see fit. I'm sorry that you and your lot find that inconvenient but you will soon see that it isn't going to change.

You called me self-centered, yet what motivates me is to bring about gun control for the safety of everyone. That's a sane and logical purpose. You on the other hand want something less innocuous, or so we're left to surmise. I'm saying I believe you want fewer gun laws because of some strange lust for collecting weapons. You favor that over safety from mass shootings? You will sacrifice no part of your cherished second amendment rights to help achieve solidarity on this issue? If that's final, just say so and I'll stop talking to you.

EDIT: London does not have the murder rate that New York does. I hardly think that one month constitutes a firm lead in murders. I think it's tragic that London is experiencing more crime, however I believe that they are still reasonably safer than is New York.

 

Exactly.

You have an organization like the CDC saying on one site that smoking causes cancer, diabetes, arthritis

I'm not talking about conspiracy theories, I'm talking about context. About how they are all categorized

Follow the links, those 480,000 deaths a year include smoking related illnesses. Its only true in a very vague way

"Diabetes is due to either the pancreas not producing enough insulin or the cells of the body not responding properly to the insulin produced" - smoking is the main cause of this? Smoking isnt the primary cause of any type of arthritis

Someone is 100kg over there ideal weight for most of their life, never exercise, eat mostly junk food with high levels of sodium,sugar, transfats, aspartame, breath in the ever increasing toxicity of air pollution, plastics, and now cell phone products and infrastructure...but also smoke....they die earlier than the statistical average, then it will be listed as a smoking related death


This is the link for anyone else interested CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

 

You anti-gun folks are single-minded to a fault. I've only ever owned two guns. I don't collect them. But you have such an irrational fear of them that you make stuff up about anyone who doesn't share your fear. For instance, you believe I have a strange lust for collecting weapon, and that I want you to believe that you are unsafe for not owning a gun. Wrong on both counts. You just need those things to be true in order to continue your judgment of those who don't share your fear.

 

You shouldn't make assumptions about me. I'm just sharing my opinion.

 

Perhaps. But the 1689 English Bill of Rights includes such a right.

I don't think any king or government has ever forbidden subjects from defending themselves when criminals attack them.

That is talking about a subject trying to resist his sovereign government.

Common criminals don't have sovereign powers, so this wouldn't be an issue when defending against them.

 

That would be news to the Oxford English Dictionary:

ancient1
1.1 Having been in existence for a very long time.
‘ancient forests’
ancient | Definition of ancient in English by Oxford Dictionaries

The really neat thing about facts is, there is no need for me to make them true. Facts are just naturally true on their own merits.

Yes.

I'm not trying to replace any facts. I think the facts are fine just as they are.

 

That is incorrect. Free people have the right to have guns that are suitable for self defense.

No. They are dark examples of countries where freedom has been abolished.

That is incorrect. The meaning remains exactly the same.

In particular, it means that free people have the right to have weapons that are suitable for self defense.

It also means that free people have the right to have any weapon that there is no justification for banning.

I have not denied any facts.

I suppose weakness is a matter of opinion. I find it a strange adjective to apply to the defense of freedom and liberty. But no matter I guess.

All I do is point out facts and reality. What is wrong with that?

It is certainly true though that facts tend to remain the same from post to post, so if someone repeats the same untrue claim, the facts that rebut that untrue claim will be unchanging.

Can you point out a single thing that I'm wrong about?

Pointing out facts is hardly an attempt to brainwash you.

If you choose to disregard facts, that is your right. But those facts are going to continue unchanged.

Since there is no justification for banning it, that will only happen in countries where freedom has been abolished.

It's certainly not going to happen in any country defended by the NRA.

The American people are never going to sacrifice any part of any of our rights. Ever.

 

It's why I'm a Merriam-Webster guy.

2: Of or relating to a remote period, to a time early in history, or to those living in such a period or time: ancient Egyptians; especially : of or relating to the historical period beginning with the earliest known civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in a.d. 476

So colloquially, referring to a piece of furniture as ancient would be fine. However since you're referring to a specific historical period, ancient is poor choice of words. Especially when you repeat it to make your argument 8 times.

Definition of ANCIENT