"@PoliticsPeach: @Bidenshairplugs u RACIST PROUDLY wave guns ... but AA's it's a crime! #FergusonOctober #tcot pic.twitter.com/FecmQNaIHj"
— Ms. L. (@SouthernLady328) October 11, 2014
In order to combat gun violence, and to keep schools SAFe (pun intended), Huntsville City Schools Superintendent Casey Wardynski called the passage of strict gun control laws .
NOPE. He invoked the Sandy Hook tragedy and instituted a scheme, I mean, an off the books spying program after being alerted of a potential (not to be confused with actual) threat via Twitter, against a teacher with a cough cough foreign connection, via the National Security Agency, via Al Langford, of the need to monitor some (not to be confused with ALL) students social media accounts , including, but not limited to, brazen students posting pictures of themselves with submachine (sic) guns, fist full of $100.00 bills, and flashing "gang" signs, not to be confused with students posting pictures of themselves with guns for hunting .
NOTICE: Due to Huntsville City School Superintendent Casey Warydynski's Executive Orders, the school district may have read your social media accounts without warning, warrant, or notice. You have no recourse nor protection but to call for the resignation of the Superintendent and the Board of Education who enabled him.
Join us as we rally for the future of our children and the immediate resignation of HCS superintendent Dr. Casey Wardynski, Annie Merts Building, 200 White Street, Thursday, October 16,2014, @3:30 PM. "The future of our children, community, and our city, requires your support and your presence.
17 comments:
Strict gun control laws did not work in Washington D.C. Gun crime dropped much faster after their strict gun control law was overturned by the courts.
Strict gun control laws are not working in Chicago.
Strict gun control laws won't work unless you can't guarantee that you can get all guns out of everybody's hands and if you can guarantee that no new guns will come into the country.
It's no coincidence that all but one mass shooting in the United States has occurred in a "gun-free" zone. Most criminals will look for target with the least resistance.
Thank you for the right wing talking points, but that's all they are, talking points. Crime did not "drop much faster" after the Supreme Court overturned the gun ban in the District of Colombia. Strict gun control laws aren't working in Chicago because the surrounding states have lax laws. As a matter of fact, the black on black crime rate you and yours are so fond of citing is up. But then again we knew that would happen because we've had this discussion before. Remember?
"The African American Political Pundit believes the Supreme Court handed African Americans a license to kill each other.
AAPP: "This is one of the most bigoted decisions of the Supreme court. This U.S. Supreme Court has made a calculated decision to continue what many in African American communities across America consider, official U.S. Supreme Court condoned genocide. Thurgood Marshall would have never sat still on this." Where are the national black voices? Silent." http://www.leftinalabama.com/diary/2040/ on #hsvboe #SpyGate Redux
It's not about reducing crime, it's about reducing gun violence.
"Most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding, and they use
their guns safely. The President strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. But to better protect our children and our
communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson, there are four common-sense steps we can take right now".
The President plan includes:
1. Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out
of dangerous hands;
2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity
magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce
gun violence;
3. Making schools safer; and
4. Increasing access to mental health services.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
And if strict gun laws reduced gun violence that would be great, but the UK has strict gun laws.
From 2003: "Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz3G7Kqy4jQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
England saw a drastic increase in homicides after it's strict gun laws were enacted. As of 2009, gun crimes were up by 89%. Homicides have started to decrease after there was a large increase in the number of police officers in the UK as well as arming police officers on patrol in high crime areas.
Australia also has strict gun laws. They were enacted in 1996. People like to talk about about the low homicide rates of Australia (1.1 per 100,000). But they don't mention that homicides had been on a steady decline since 1969 and that their strict gun laws didn't decrease the homicide rate any more than they were already expected to.
They also don't mention that New Zealand, which is similar to Australia, but doesn't have gun bans like Australia does has a lower homicide rate (0.9 per 100,000). (Why is New Zealand important? It is a control group. It is demographically and socioeconomically similar to Australia.)
UK, Australia, and New Zealand are island nations. They have physical features that provide some level of border control. We are not an island nation. Our border control is laughable.
Strict Gun Laws don't effectively reduce gun violence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854
You are correct the UK has strict gun laws.
When is the last time there was a mass school shooting in the UK?
When was the last time there was a mass shooting in a movie theater, shopping mall,restaurant, or a church?
Monitoring some students social media accounts certainly doesn't reduce gun violence.
But we don't live in the UK we live in the United States of America, which those in the UK have dubbed the Wild, Wild, West.
"The UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. If you want to own a gun, it is very difficult to do so.
In short, it has been designed to put as many barriers in the way as possible and to assume the worst, rather than hope for the best.
In the United States, you can declare that it is your constitutional right to bear arms. But in the UK, you need to spend hours filling in paperwork and proving to police officers that you are not a danger to society.
The system is administered by police forces in each part of the UK and in England, Scotland and Wales there are separate licences for shotguns and for other firearms."
http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974
Q: How many mass shooting occurred in the UK before they put in place their strict gun laws?
A: 10 in all of the 20th century (1900-1999). And 7 of them were part of the Ireland-Northern Ireland conflict. So that leaves the Shepherd's Bush murders where 3 police officers were killed investigating a car outside a prison in 1966. The 1987 Hungerford massacre where Michael Robert Ryan killed 15 before killing himself. And the Dunblane school massacre where Thomas Hamilton killed 17 before killing himself.
But to play your game, the Cumbria shooting that occurred on June 2nd, 2010 where Derrick Bird killed 12, injured 11 over 2 hours before he killed himself using a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun and a .22 calibre bolt-action rifle.
So we have 3 non-conflict mass shootings in the previous century and 1 so far in this century. Not enough evidence to say whether or not England's gun laws have had any effect on mass shooting as there was many mass shooting in England to begin with. But considering that gun violence is up. The English are now arming patrol officers after decades of patrol officers not carrying firearms.
You said it's not about reducing crime, it's about reducing gun violence. But gun laws in the UK have had the opposite effect. They haven't reduced the rate of mass shootings. They haven't reduced the rate of gun violence but rather the rate of gun violence has gone up by nearly double.
If it makes you feel better to believe strict guns laws in the UK have had the opposite effect have at it. It's not about the UK, It's about the US.
Last week the FBI released a new report on the increasing number of ‘active shooter incidents.’ The FBI report looked specifically at events where “individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in populated areas.” Everytown’s school shooting list includes incidents when a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds.
http://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/back-school-two-school-shootings-today-hours-apart-call-action-political-leaders/
Yes and Everytown's list has already been discredited. It includes all cases where a gun was discharged on a school campus such as a case in Iowa where a man with no connection to the school killed himself in a high school parking lot. Or another case where there was an early-morning armed robbery on a street that went through a university campus in Wisconsin.
Politifact reviewed Everytown's list and found the 74 incidents broke down as such:
• Incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder: 10 instances
• Incidents related to criminal activity (such as drug dealing or robbery), or personal altercations: 39 instances
• Incidents unconnected to members of school community and/or that took place outside school hours: 16 instances
• Suicides: 6 instances
• Accidental discharges: 3 instances
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/13/everytown-gun-safety/have-there-been-74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-clo/
The North Carolina shooting incident is an example of where the HCS/Wardynski's program could have worked to prevent the incident. The shooter's family said he was being bullied and had received disturbing texts the night before the shooting. But as the shooting in North Carolina occurred before classes began and outside the school, it is unclear whether metal detectors or other physical security would have been able to prevent that shooting.
In both cases, all we know is that gun involved was a handgun, so we know that gun laws involving assault rifles wouldn't have stopped. Not even sure if laws about "large" magazines would have been effective. The North Carolina shooting, we know the shooter found the gun in the grandmother's house and that the shooter surrendered to a school official. The Kentucky shooter fled to the apartment where he lived and was arrested there. The police haven't released information on how he obtained his gun.
Both would not have been able to get the guns legally due their ages, both are either 15 or 16.
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/suspected-school-shooters-family-says-he-was-bulli/nhZRR/
http://www.wave3.com/story/26668465/suspect-in-fern-creek-high-school-shooting-taken-into-custody
And it might not be about the UK, but we can look at the effectiveness of the laws we want to put in place here. If the laws are not productive or actually counter productive elsewhere, what makes us think that it will be different in the US?
The laws are working in the UK and I have every reason to believe they will work in the US also. Again,if it makes you feel better to believe other wise have at it.
"I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people."
http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/president-obamas-speech-on-gun-control-bill-defeat-transcript/
It's not that I believe otherwise. I have given evidence that the gun laws in the UK are not working. You haven't given any evidence to show that they are working.
From the Daily Mail UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html)
"Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent.
Only four police forces - Cleveland-Humberside, Cambridgeshire and Sussex - recorded falls in gun crime.
The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent."
If more than doubling the number of deaths and injuries by guns is working, than what would a failure be?
If an increase of 89% in gun crimes in a decade is working, than what would a failure be?
You have not given evidence that gun laws in the UK are not working. You have given a right wing opinion. Again, it's not about the UK, it's about the US.
Why do you keep deleting my comments?
They are not harassing, defaming, or disparaging follow commentators or the blog owner. They are not interfering with the natural progress of the thread. They are not trolling, obscene, inflammatory, spam, or advertising.
They are a response to your last comment. You said I did not provide evidence and I am trying to prove that I did.
So Lancashire figures that show recorded gun crime offenses increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08 (an increase of 598%) is not evidence but a right wing opinion?
So United Kingdom figures that show the total number of firearm crimes increasing from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 in 2008/09 (an increase of 89%) is not evidence but a right wing opinion?
So United Kingdom figures that show the total number of people either killed or injured by firearms increasing from 864 in 1998/99 to 1,760 in 2008/09 (an increase of 104%) is not evidence but a right wing opinion?
Post a Comment