6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[spartan231490]

False. If you actually looked at my sources, one of them compares European countries, it's the havard study titled "gun control is counterproductive", and countries with more guns per capita have fewer murders. The data does speak for itself, it shows that gun control and gun bans don't reduce crime or murder rates.

Oh, that for a change. That study is bullshit because they haven't controlled for a single relevant variable, and concluded that a correlation is the same as a causal relation.

Norway for instance has a population much thinner than other countries. Socio-economic circumstances aren't the same...

It wasn't a study, it was a political pamphlet; Controlling for exterior variables is about the first thing you learn when learning how to do academic writing.

Good to know that Norway and Western Europe are both US states for you... /facepalm.

Norway is a country, western Europe is a region within a continent. Neither contain any place with gun laws like in the US, and the crime rates are a lot lower as a result.

It's so good to know that people will just blatantly ignore data that opposes their position, and lie about things to distract people from noticing. They said right in the study that it's a correlation, not causation, "It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates" and it's far from the only study. I have provided you with MOUNTAINS of data, that you ignore from up on your high horse where you can just shoot down studies and data out of hand without providing data of your own, or for that matter without good reason. Russia has a low population density too, and an extremely low gun per capita, and their murder rate is almost 4 times higher than the US. As mentioned in the Harvard study.

Yes, you control for other variables, but that's kinda hard to do when you need to find a statistically significant number of countries that are similar in culture, population density, and average socio-political status. Furthermore, even when you don't control for variables, data such as this is pretty damn conclusive: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)." I bolded the important parts. This is not just a coincidence, and to cut you off at the pass, of course this doesn't prove causation, but it's pretty damning evidence against the suggestion that fewer guns is a cause for less crime.

Also, even more amusing to me is that you violate your own rule about not controlling for relevant variables by comparing the US to European countries, two places with radically different cultures, economic systems, race make-up, population densities, economic system, political system, and socio-economic make up.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

It's also amusing to me that you say eastern block countries are safer, directly in conflict with the data found by a Harvard study(at least with regards to Russia) in addition to it being completely irrelevant(by your own standards) because of all the uncontrolled variables as listed above.

I also like how you completely ignored fully half of the post you are quoting, and tried to cut it out of your post like it didn't exist. Maybe because you have no answer for this other damning piece of evidence?

Look at the UK, "the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]" That's from the Justfacts.com source I posted earlier. The data is not on your side.

Not to mention all of the various sources I posted earlier that you just blanket ignored by saying that they were comparing between US states and that somehow made them irrelevant. Guess what, it doesn't, it's one of the most relevant comparisons that can be made because of the relatively similar culture and socio-economic status across states. Still huge differences in these uncontrollable variables(due to the low number of available data points), but much closer than comparisons between European countries, and god in heaven better than comparing the US to European countries, our culture, economic system, social structure, and socio-economic status is so different from Europe any comparisons of that nature are meaningless.

How about you finally ball up and give us a study / sources to back up your claims.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Think of socio-economical circumstances yourself please. You'll note that the United States, because of its free availability of murder weapons, is right up there just below warzones, and even above Brazil and its favela wars between drug gangs.

Note how the Netherlands and Switserland are extremely close together, despite the Swiss very low population density and extreme affluence, compared to the Dutch very heavy population density and normal affluence for the region. This is because murder weapons are present in every single Swiss home, and Switserland is the nr 1 highest ranking country in Europe for 'family drama' murders.

Other than that I can of course build on the simple blunt, irrefutable fact, that you can't kill people without weapons, so without firearms, there will *always* be fewer murders and less severe violence. There's no point in even trying to refute that, unless you can prove firearms are less lethal than hitting someone with your bare hands. Good luck with that.

Wikipedia, that's convincing. Not to mention, it's just a list of unrelated data points, with far far far too many differences between countries for it to be relevant. Here, why don't you try reading some studies:
http://www.guncite.com/Kleck-Hogan.html
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html
http://www.largo.org/Lott.html

 

[Terminate421]

26% of all cases WHERE A RESIDENT WAS AT HOME.
I did not speak of rape and murder, I spoke of attack.

Pointless comparison. Getting bitchslapped by a panicked burglar who's fearing for his life in a paranoid gun culture where he can be legally murdered, isn't proof that burglars are dangerous.

If you want to change this situation, you need to ban gun ownership, which is the source of this elevated level of violence, so the situation in the US will start to resemble a normal situation, where burglars run away at the least hint of trouble in 99,9% of the cases, with the 0,1% of cases being drug criminals trying to rip eachother off.

No really, tell me more about how right you are. Just taking away all guns from a culture that has had guns in civilian possession since the later 1700's will always make things better.

 

[Panda Mania]

Well. I abhor violence as a rule, and I'm not a huge fan of gun ownership, but I gotta say: this is pretty awesome/epic. That she kept calm in the face of terror and followed protocol, that she protected herself from possible harm, and that the gunshot wound was relatively minor and the guy was soon out of the hospital and in jail. I'll bet he'll think twice about robbing a home next time...

EDIT: Ok yeah, the first story was a tad sensationalist..."He tried to enter the closet? OMG RAEPIST!" He may have had no clue she was there, for all we know. :|

 

[DudeistBelieve]

1: Kick Ass is over rated and about as deep as a kiddie pool during a drought.
2: Aren't we glad that the girl is safe? I sure am!
3: This:

The intruder got a gunshot and he's about to get his booty violated in the cell block.

Job well done, 12 year old girl.

Is unacceptable.
So, is what your trying to tell me is that rape is a good thing in some cases?
Like, if it's an "ironic" punishment for a male criminal?
What if the intruder had been female? Would you have made the same "joke"?
No, because rape can't really be considered "appropriate" or "laughable" unless the victim's a man.
If we strip away the societal context of the joke, you've basically now said that SOME rape is ok. Of course, you basically get away with it, because the listeners are supposed to find the perpetrator reprehensible/sub-human and therefore an acceptable target for anything.
For example, I could reasonably be forgiven for saying "If I knew a Nazi, I'd decapitate him, peel the flesh from his face, place my fingers in his still dripping eye sockets, and bowl his recently scalped cranium into a woodchipper. I would then use the brain matter to feed other nazis". Sure, that example is extreme, but if we attach the word "Nazi" to the beginning why does it strangely feel more acceptable? Even with the word "nazi" added in as my "get out of jail free card", I've still just admitted to desiring the brutal murder, desecration, and mutilation of another man because I disagree with his personal philosophy.
Is that REALLY the society we want to live in?
Please reconsider this opinion.

Actually, I'd be for the joke even if said potential rapist was a female.

You know why?

CAUSE ITS A FUCKING RAPIST! Yeah a rape joke is okay if the butt of the joke falls on a RAPIST.

Also, did you just describe the desire to genocide entire groups of Gays, Gypsies and Jews as "Personal Philosophy"?

Let's leave the ex reality show hosts out of this...
1: We're not talking about rape jokes, we're talking about your amusement at the concept of rape being inflicted as an ironic or just punishment. Again, is some Rape ok in your mind?
2: Like I said, it's an extreme example. This was not meant to imply that atrocities committed by the Nazis were somehow excusable as a "point of view". However, what I'm tying to get across is that MAYBE it's a bad idea to answer ugliness with ugliness. Maybe, it's better to try and move forward as human beings, rather than satisfying ourselves with cheap cathartic crap.

1. Yes, Rape is okay if it befalls a person that is pro-genocide... committed an act of rape themselves.... or fucks a child. Or at least okay to the point that I do not care nor do I have any basic human sympathy for them. Seriously, they are bad people.

I don't support a society where we actively try to punish people, but if a villian prays upon a villian by sheer happenstance? I fail to see how that isn't the universe sorting out it's karma.

Barring the non-existence of "karma" or universal "order", of course.
I can't help but feel that the preservation of my humanity is somehow more important than paying imaginary tribute to likely fictional, highly subjective, philosophical construct.
Again, such as karma or any universal or objective interpretation of the concept of "justice".

Also, the fact that you can pretend to deprive yourself of humanity (while talking on the internet, how brave...) isn't so much a philosophical standpoint or even really a show of strength to the "harsh and unforgiving" world, as much as it is a cop out. Opposed, of course, to taking a hard and objective look at what amount to be difficult and heart rending subjects.

Yes how brave of me, with an account that has my real name... linked to not only my personal facebook account, twitter, but also a website where I show videos of myself, yes... Clearly I'm talking tough behind an anonymous shield. It's not like my name is Nicholas Rehfeldt or anything, and I'm certainly not from Long Island.


And really dude, Jesus Christ. No one is saying we lock the guy up in chains and tell a 400 pound man name tiny to go to town on his ass. But if so happens during the course of a potential rapist life he gets raped himself? Good. These aren't people like you and me, people that can have empathy for others. People that would go, sure it would be nice to lord my power over another individual for a while, but it would make the other person feel sad and upset and I don't want that.

The people that do such things lack basic humanity. They lack the ability to care about others. I don't understand why then it would be wrong of me to hear of a rapist getting raped by another and think anything other than good. They'll never rehabilitate. They'll never feel sorry for their crimes against humanity. If they could possibly understand that THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You act as though I callously came to this decision quickly. No, I do believe in the moral high ground. That we have to do the right thing simply because it is, but if tragedy happens to be fall someone so monstrous by sheer coincidence? I give not a fuck. In this case, the "victim" would be a potential child fucker. IF that's true, as someone pointed out I don't know, then I really wouldn't care if someone stabs him in prison. He fucked a kid, he's as evil as the fucker that shot that six year old watching Batman over the summer.

So, you have no empathy for people who have no empathy for other people...... ergo you wouldn't have empathy for someone like that (who has no empathy for people with no empathy) either?

Did they kill someone in cold blood, or fuck a kid?

 

[JochemHippie]

Self defense is usually just putting yourself in harms way, better to just cooperate then die trying to defend your wallet.

So you live in a world where people who assault you wear signs that indicate immediately that a burglar/mugger really is just after your wallet and not out to kill you?

Man, Sharon Tate could have used that kind of set up, don't you think?

Why'd they be out to kill me? Most are just in it for easy money, it's easier to get away with burglary then murder in any case. Not even taking in account that there's no extra money in committing an unnecessary murder.

 

[JochemHippie]

Why'd they be out to kill me?

Because you're there.

When Tex Watson and the rest of the Manson crew were asked by their victims why they were being targeted, the answer was "You answered the door."

Could also be a gang initiation crime. Not more than 2 miles from me, the manager of a Pizza Plus and his wife had their throats slashed, and not a single cent taken. The kids that did it did it to get into a gang.

You assume murderers need motivation to do it. Or at least motivation you can understand.

You assume all burglurs are in essence murderers.

Which you base on a case from the late 60's and an incident in your surroundings.

 

[JochemHippie]

Why'd they be out to kill me?

Because you're there.

When Tex Watson and the rest of the Manson crew were asked by their victims why they were being targeted, the answer was "You answered the door."

Could also be a gang initiation crime. Not more than 2 miles from me, the manager of a Pizza Plus and his wife had their throats slashed, and not a single cent taken. The kids that did it did it to get into a gang.

You assume murderers need motivation to do it. Or at least motivation you can understand.

You assume all burglurs are in essence murderers.

Which you base on a case from the late 60's and an incident in your surroundings.

Why shouldn't I assume someone willing to break into my house, especially if I'm in it, isn't out to do me harm?

And child..I can cite a whole LOT more than the Manson killings as examples, if you want a wall of text. You're talking to a true crime enthusiast.

For your stuff?
Seriously, isn't the whole point of burglarizing a place taking the valuables? Car keys, house keys, etc?

The incidents in which it ends violent are the cases in which they made a mistake somewhere and the person is home, which is if possible naturally avoided. It's not like they just decide on a hunch where to break into...

Unless we both have a very different insight on the terminology here, I have no idea how we're disagreeing.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

No really, tell me more about how right you are. Just taking away all guns from a culture that has had guns in civilian possession since the later 1700's will always make things better.

While im on the fence about gun control laws this argument is beyond stupid.

Where the HELL do you live where you say "This is the law" and people say "Why should we follow it?" And you say "... erm... er... we have no way of making you... because we ask you to?". You see in my country we have a police force and a justice system with courts and jails and judges and its been working pretty damn nicely for a few thousand years. I mean by your logic a criminal, who doesnt follow laws, could walk into the whitehouse RIGHT NOW and ransom the president for a billion dollars. Because hes a criminal right? He doesnt need to follow laws. Therefor he can totally ignore all of them with no consequence. Oh wait. He cant. Laws are enforced. By the police. Are you in Somalia right now? Unless you are that argument doesnt hold up. Your described situation indicates criminals are super heros. Totally able to do anything they want at all times. They have thrown off the shackles of the law and can behave in ALL the ways and NO ONE STOPS THEM!

FYI i think gun control in America is a bad idea. Dont even think about straw manning me.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Its interesting how different sources show wildly different results. Here are my two most trusted sources for this matter:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Which shows the US homicide rate to be 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010

Then we have these figures from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384 (The giant spike was because of a terrorist attack and a rogue doctor who purposefully murdered his patients)

610 homicides in the UK in 2010. The population of the UK is 62,641,000. Thats 626 hundred thousand with 610 homicides. Therefor the rate in England is about 0.97.

Now we tackle the other variables, unemployment and socio-economic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

7.9% in the UK in 2010. In america at this time unemployment was 9.6% which can contribute to the increase in violent crime. Culture is the largest part of this equation which finally dictates my view. American culture is pretty gun laden. Guns exist in your society already. In your culture. In your history. In England we dont have that same attachment at all. Honestly i feel a "hand in" is totally ridiculous. Easier to keep something out to begin with (especially when youre an island) than to remove it when it permeates the country so fully. As such i conclude leaving Americas guns alone is the safest option. Similarly England is safer without guns being introduced from scratch, it isnt part of our culture and i doubt we would take to it at all as a people. I think everyone is better off as they are than trying to force a cultural change.

 

[Vegosiux]

I am now waiting for 3 pages for him to finally show me the numbers that support his claim that 99.9% of all burglars are harmless people who'll only shake your hand and walk away if you catch them while they are in the process of stealing your shit.

After calling him out on making unsupported claims the worst things you can do is claim that he said that, since he never did.

Just sayin'.

Oh and by the way, he's right-wing.

And I got a warning for making a similar post in R&P the other day, without actually calling anyone names, even, just stating that they're unwilling to discuss things properly.

Just sayin' that too.

But seriously. Don't call people "stoners". It's rude.

 

[Moderated]

snip

So, what do you think is good punishment for serial rapist-murderers?

 

[spartan231490]

SNIP

Its interesting how different sources show wildly different results. Here are my two most trusted sources for this matter:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Which shows the US homicide rate to be 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010

Then we have these figures from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384 (The giant spike was because of a terrorist attack and a rogue doctor who purposefully murdered his patients)

610 homicides in the UK in 2010. The population of the UK is 62,641,000. Thats 626 hundred thousand with 610 homicides. Therefor the rate in England is about 0.97.

Now we tackle the other variables, unemployment and socio-economic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

7.9% in the UK in 2010. In america at this time unemployment was 9.6% which can contribute to the increase in violent crime. Culture is the largest part of this equation which finally dictates my view. American culture is pretty gun laden. Guns exist in your society already. In your culture. In your history. In England we dont have that same attachment at all. Honestly i feel a "hand in" is totally ridiculous. Easier to keep something out to begin with (especially when youre an island) than to remove it when it permeates the country so fully. As such i conclude leaving Americas guns alone is the safest option. Similarly England is safer without guns being introduced from scratch, it isnt part of our culture and i doubt we would take to it at all as a people. I think everyone is better off as they are than trying to force a cultural change.

What are you trying to say? There is no point comparing UK to US, not only are they so culturally different, but 2 data points is not enough to draw a conclusion. When I said UK murder rate was higher, I was comparing it to the UK before the laws restricting guns were put into place there, not to the US. That was very clear.

 

[Vegosiux]

snip

So, what do you think is good punishment for serial rapist-murderers?

Who in this story is a serial rapist-murderer, if I might ask?

Also, what would a good punishment for a real one be? That depends entirely on why he did it. If he's mentally ill, closed section of a loony bin, otherwise, incarceration in a prison, of course.

 

[Moderated]

snip

Lets say the serial rapist-murderer breaks out of prison 3 times in a row.
Then what would his punishment be?

 

[Vegosiux]

snip

Lets say the serial rapist-murderer breaks out of prison 3 times in a row.
Then what would his punishment be?

How about you answer the question I have asked, as well?

But okay, I'll be nice and answer yours: "Let's say that's a loaded hypothetical, suggesting some gross incompetence of the law enforcement." Or "Let's say whatever the punishment for breaking out of prison is."

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

snip

Lets say the serial rapist-murderer breaks out of prison 3 times in a row.
Then what would his punishment be?

Locked up in a better prison, of course.

Look, I detest violent crime as much (and perhaps more so) than the average person. But lex talionis as a method of justice simply doesn't work.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

What are you trying to say? There is no point comparing UK to US, not only are they so culturally different, but 2 data points is not enough to draw a conclusion. When I said UK murder rate was higher, I was comparing it to the UK before the laws restricting guns were put into place there, not to the US. That was very clear.

I imagined you would respond this way. At what point CAN we compare? Whats the arbitrary line of "similar enough" after which a comparison is possible between two distinct geographical places. You claim cities with stricter gun control have higher claim earlier yes (unless that wasnt you in which case forgive me). Can we even compare two american cities? Can we compare the two towns near my home town about 30 mins away? When is different too different for a comparison. Surely no conclusion can be drawn at all about guns being good/bad if such comparisons are impossible.

 

[Moderated]

snip

It doesn't, but it interests me.
Lets say that no prison could hold him. What would you have his punishment be? What if the punishment for breaking out was more jail-time?

 

[Vegosiux]

snip

It doesn't, but it interests me.
Lets say that no prison could hold him. What would you have his punishment be? What if the punishment for breaking out was more jail-time?

I'd likely lock him up with someone asking obnoxious questions in order to force people to answer what they want to hear.

So no, I'm not going to play your "let's say" game, because you're pushing it into ridiculous hypotheticals.

But here's one for you. Let's say the guy you executed was innocent after all. Do you say "Oops" or "My bad"?

 

[spartan231490]

What are you trying to say? There is no point comparing UK to US, not only are they so culturally different, but 2 data points is not enough to draw a conclusion. When I said UK murder rate was higher, I was comparing it to the UK before the laws restricting guns were put into place there, not to the US. That was very clear.

I imagined you would respond this way. At what point CAN we compare? Whats the arbitrary line of "similar enough" after which a comparison is possible between two distinct geographical places. You claim cities with stricter gun control have higher claim earlier yes (unless that wasnt you in which case forgive me). Can we even compare two american cities? Can we compare the two towns near my home town about 30 mins away? When is different too different for a comparison. Surely no conclusion can be drawn at all about guns being good/bad if such comparisons are impossible.

That was not I, I don't generally compare two cities. You can compare the same place over time(like the UK's murder rate climbing unaffected by stringent gun control laws, or similar occurances in US cities that have banned hand-guns). And also, a large number of relatively similar data points can help adjust for uncontrolled variables. That's the whole point behind many psychological and sociological surveys that use random sampling, a large enough number of data points shows a trend despite uncontrolled variables.