CDZ Culture: Scotland had a mass shooting; last year, Scotland had two unlawful gun homicides

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by usmbguest5318, Feb 24, 2018.

  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,983
    Thanks Received:
    11,460
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,639

    This is how Japan stopped gun crime among their actual criminals....long prison sentences...which, by the way, is what American supporters of the 2nd Amendment keep telling you guys is the only way to stop gun crime .....not by targeting law abiding gun owners.....

    http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



    Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

    “In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

    The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

    Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

    Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

    ---

    A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”
     
  2. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,983
    Thanks Received:
    11,460
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,639

    t is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    This implies that Australian gun control stopped their mass public shootings....and that is a lie.....as I posted on another thread...they have had about a dozen shootings in public places since the ban as well as family shootings........in each case the Australian gun laws did not stop the shooter from going to a mall, a school or a theater and shooting lots of people.....the only thing that stopped the shooter was his own agenda, and that the people he shot didn't all die from their gun shot wounds...

    This lie about mass public shootings in Australia needs to be exposed....

    Xelor...can you explain how Australian gun control laws stopped these public shootings from becoming mass public shootings?

    Here is just a short list of shootings in public spaces....how were these stopped by Australian gun control laws?

    .2011 Hectorville siege - Wikipedia
    Monash University shooting - Wikipedia
    Melbourne gangland killings - Wikipedia
    Silk–Miller police murders - Wikipedia
    The La Trobe University shooting
    Millewa state forest killings
    Peter James Knight abortion clinic shooter
    2002 Cabramatta wedding shooting, 7 people shot, not killed
    Jean Eric Gassy - Wikipedia
    2007 Melbourne CBD shootings - Wikipedia
    2011 Hectorville siege - Wikipedia
    —-25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman were shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney, the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families. Twenty-four-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom. Up to 100 shots were fired into the house by four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
    —28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast, Queensland, shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[108][109][110][111
    Queen Street Mall, Brisbane - Wikipedia
    2014 Sydney hostage crisis - Wikipedia
    –10 September 2015 – Karin Lock was shot dead in a McDonald’s restaurant in the Gold Coast by her ex-husband Stephen Lock, who then turned the gun on himself and shot himself dead.[140][141][142]
    2015 Parramatta shooting - Wikipedia
    –7 March 2016 – Finks bikie gang member Wayne Williams armed himself with an AK 47 rifle and shot and killed Michael Bassal and shot and wounded his brothers Terry Bassal and Mark Bassal outside an industrial building in the suburb of Ingleburn Sydney. Williams then barricaded himself inside the building and took three hostages, resulting in a siege and stand off with police. He later released the three hostages and shot himself dead. The shootings were committed as a result of a business deal gone wrong.[citation needed]
     
  3. ChrisL
    Offline

    ChrisL Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    80,799
    Thanks Received:
    21,345
    Trophy Points:
    2,320
    Location:
    Wherever the wild things are!!
    Ratings:
    +53,437
    Why don't these liberal assholes move there? That would be GREAT. Then they could leave us and our rights ALONE. We REAL AMERICANS are not fearful of a "gun around every corner" and we shouldn't have to pay or give up ANYTHING because of your fucking fear.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,983
    Thanks Received:
    11,460
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,639

    Scotland and England are becoming way too violent for them....they would hate it over there....
     
  5. TheParser
    Offline

    TheParser VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    70
    Ratings:
    +644
    The post about Japan was fascinating.

    I have long envied the Japanese -- ever since I read that you can actually walk down the street at midnight and you will be perfectly safe.

    I hope that the Japanese do what it takes to maintain their peaceful and orderly society.
     
  6. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,983
    Thanks Received:
    11,460
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,639

    You did read where their police can search you anytime, for any reason....right? The house visits without warrants? And that their prosecutors can coerce confessions from prisoners...right?
     
  7. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    120,286
    Thanks Received:
    10,752
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +50,742
    So when BLM is against police brutality the gop sides says that we need cops it's the blacks being wrong.

    Now with the last incident of murder at school these same folks say that we don't need the cops to protect us..

    Talk about your losers on parade...
     
  8. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,983
    Thanks Received:
    11,460
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,639

    Yes....black lives matter is wrong....the problem is not police brutality or police shooting black men......that is a lie....the problem is black males shooting other black males

    And the black neighborhoods....they want more police...it is the left wing activists who want the police kept out...not the actual people in those neighborhoods....
     
  9. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    37,907
    Thanks Received:
    6,886
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Ratings:
    +30,796
    Xelor/2aguy
    Xelor posted a long article providing stats on gun violence decreasing in Scotland after gun control was imposed. 2AGuy immediately countermoved with a long article providing stats that gun violence is dramatically increasing in Scotland and Britain generally.

    Which am I -- or any of us -- supposed to believe? Who do I trust? I LOVE the Australian Prime Minister's statement at the press briefing with President Trump: "We have basically no semiautomatic weapons--let alone automatic--in our country."

    God, I wish we could say that here, because as I advocated JUST for the elimination of weapons like the AR-15, I have been schooled by gun rights supporters that ALL semiautomatics perform the same way, are as fast and as deadly. Where does that lead me in the argument? Well, not toward no control, I'll give you a hint.

    I'm not the only gun control advocate who is at a disadvantage in these arguments because I don't have a lot of technical knowledge about the firepower and performance of different kinds of guns. I don't plan on spending a lot of time researching it either, because in the end they'll just turn and argue the 2nd Amendment, or the "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns," which has no answer.

    I wish someone could be trusted to give us the absolute truth on this issue without putting their political spin or wishes into the argument. I don't know where to go for that. The posts from Xelor and 2AGuy show the problem. It isn't that either of them is lying. But they completely contradict each other. What is the answer?
     
  10. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    I am not at all suggesting that limiting gun ownership/possession will reduce crime overall. I don't know why anyone suggests that a net decrement in crime is the purpose of gun control proposals.

    There are two genres of theory (science sense of the term) about the etiology of criminality: psychological, sociological and biological, each having their own approach:
    • Behavioral
      • Psychological -- construes the etiology of criminality as follows:
        • Foundations of criminal behavior's etiology:
          • The individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories.
          • Personality is the major motivational element that drives behavior within individuals.
          • Normality is generally defined by social consensus.
          • Crimes then would result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual.
          • Criminal behavior may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses certain felt needs.
          • Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, i.e., a diseased mind, inappropriate learning or improper conditioning, the emulation of inappropriate role models, and adjustment to inner conflicts
        • Sociological approach-- Whereas purely psychological approaches to understanding criminal behavior's etiology focus on identifying motivators in the individual, sociological approaches integrate impulsive individuality with external forces to identify factors that often but not always coalesce with one's extant mental state to convince individuals of their anomie, which, in turn, leads in some individuals to antisocial behaviors, one of which is criminal activity. Thus the sociological approach, though sometimes described as separate from the psychological one, is inextricably linked to human psychology, so closely that comprehension of each's etiological explanation for criminality can occur in isolation, application of each disciplines solution propositions/implications are best undertaken in unison for humanity cannot separate within individuals the impelling effects of one's own mind and those of the society in s/he dwells.
          • Connects the issues of the individual’s criminality with the broader social structures and cultural values of society, familial, or peer group.
          • Explains how the contradictions of the multiplicity of interacting groups and cultural factors contribute to criminality.
          • Identifies the ways these structures cultures and contradictions have historically developed.
          • Describes the current processes of change within and among social groups undergo during any given period.
          • Criminality is evaluated from the point of view of the social construction of criminality and its social causes.
    • Biological -- The biological approach ascribes criminality to:
      • Heredity
      • Neurotransmitter dysfunction
      • Brain abnormalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or trauma

    Among the two genres of criminality's etiology, public policy can be developed and implemented to evaluate, by individual, the net impact of the interplay of all three. Doing so to determine who among us can and cannot contain their emotions so as to refrain from using firearms to facilitate their antisocial objectives, however, is financially prohibitive and likely economically inefficient given that, roughly, a human life is worth between $5M and $9M. [1] Consequently, the public policy solution approaches to curtailing the incidence of fatal outcomes of the antisocial behavior, specifically the one called "unlawful gun-related homicide," have drawn primarily from sociological findings and used with psychology's general findings about the nature of human behavior as a secondary basis.

    Efforts to fix the etiology of criminal behavior in such social and psychological factors as "the broken home," "habits of thought," "incompetent or indifferent parents," "evil associates," "inadequate supervision," etc., have, to the extent they seek to isolate the source to any one driver, met with failure. No piece of research has as yet adequately demonstrated that criminal behavior is due primarily to the operation of any one of the above social conditions or of others that could be mentioned. Each criminal is unique despite surface similarities with other offenders; thus the duality of social and psychological considerations that must be addressed by any given solution for attenuating the incidence of unlawful gun-related homicides.

    Instead of talking about the influence of this and that factor, the broken home and so forth, I prefer to examine the offender's past for evidence of emotional deprivation. In this manner one can account for the existence of those criminals (and normal persons) who had a broken home or what not, yet who suffered no real emotional deprivation as they found adequate or compensatory satisfaction elsewhere.

    Recognizing that "frustration leads to aggression," we can at least begin to understand the criminal act and thereby devise effective attenuation means and modes. Emotional deprivation, with its subsequent feelings of frustration and consequent aggressive reaction, if continued over a long enough period of time, may lead to antisocial behavior -- manifested either as neuroses or an unlawful act -- as a means of satisfying ego demands. The fact that a given person becomes a neurotic rather than a criminal depends, I think, upon the development in him of sufficient superego -- catalyzed via his own irrational conjurations or by the influences upon him from parents, from peers, or unconnected-to-him parties who, unbeknownst to them, have high influence on his thinking -- at the time he is suffering from emotional deprivation.

    A sudden loss of a job, a disappointment in sexual reception/adjustment and myriad other precipitating factors acting upon a person predisposed to aggression (even if the aggressive behavior isn't expressly intended by the person to be gun-homicide) because of emotional deprivation, may produce a criminal act. After all, few people turn overnight to crime. Careful and detailed psychological analysis of the offender and his social constellation usually produces evidence that he gradually became inured to criminal activities, as Abrahamsen puts it, over a long period of time. At the same time one must remember that we all have criminal tendencies and the fact that we do not act on them depends on our entire psychological adjustment to our fellows and their property as well as to the society in which we live.

    As time goes on and the sensitized person begins to repress the memory of his/her emotional deprivations, there arises a chronic feeling of anxiety-tinged, free-floating aggression. In the absence of restricting superego factors this person is the potential criminal who may commit an overt criminal act under pressure of one or more initiating events. After the pattern of criminal behavior is set and reinforced by repetition, the criminal thus inculcates receptive traits in his personality which produce a criminal response. [2]

    What, then, is the explanation of the criminal act? Crime is a product of an individual's tendencies and the situation of the moment interacting with his mental resistance. Letting 'C' stand for crime, 'T' for tendencies, 'S' for situation, and 'R' for resistance, one may derive the following formula: C=(T+S)/R.

    The "T" factor is not simply "aggressive tendencies" since they are present in all men. "T" also refers to adequately extreme (irrational) aggressive inclinations of an indirect nature in the form of, for instance, projections, rebellious hostility towards anyone, protest reactions, or excessive motor activity. A criminal act does not take place solely because of the release of repressed aggression, but rather occur also once the offender has built up a defense of aggression which is expressed tangentially by projections, rejection of authority, protest' reactions, etc.

    "S," the situation, is an indeterminate factor in mobilizing the criminal act. As each person has a unique psychological composition, it follows from the psychological findings about criminal behavior that only he can achieve a particular aim in a given environment. Sociology's findings inform us, however, that multiple individuals' psychology may lead to the same behavioral outcome.

    This is why public policy solutions must be designed using the guidance from both disciplines. We know there are "nut jobs" in society, but we haven't the resources to identify them on an individual level; thuse public policy must curtail "nut jobs" access to the means by which they can conduct their most opprobrious antisocial behaviors. I think most folks would concur that while crime in general is scurrilous, the crime of cowardly and from a safe-for-oneself distance killing innocent individuals, unlawful gun homicide, is among the most odious among them. The realization that all criminal behavior cannot be prevented (ihus is it uneconomic to try doing so) and having the undelightful onus of choosing what among the population of committable crimes a society is willing to bear, public policy makers opt, at present, to take action to make unlawful gun homicides as difficult and as "unsatisfying/unprofitable" as possible.



    Notes:
    1. Assuming 15K unlawful gun homicides in a year, the economic value of life lost would be $75B. While the government, a firm or an individual might invest $7B to obtain $75B of ROI on a financial investment, it cannot afford to that kind of spending on a single endeavor to identify "gun unworthy" individuals because the cash cost to the government of such an endeavor is but part of the total cost of doing so. There is also a private sector component.
    2. The cycle is the same for us all for all activity that is [1] deemed inappropriate to a well ordered society and thus made unlawful and (2) that individuals, in spite of the activity's prohibition, undertake anyway. The only difference between how a criminal and law abider makes choices about behavior is the extent of one's reticence for enduring the consequences of most of us exhibit when evaluating the risk-reward profile of any given criminal activity. This is why the guy who will, for instance, speed won't necessarily and also embezzle, burgle, rape or murder.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

best cameras

,

news