Texas Family Code Standard Possession Order: Fill & Download for Free

When you ask North Americans, Québec is terribly European. When you ask Europeans, Québec feels American.Kelly La Rue's answer to What North American city feels the most European?But there is a lot of ways in which it’s at odds with typical North American standards.Post-war Québec had powerful unions. Now I’m inclined to think the power of the unions is following a severe decline (and it will more and more look like 19th century struggles), but it still is maybe more powerful than anglo places. There was even a Wal-Mart in Québec that tried to unionize in Jonquière. Of course it was closed. It happened only once in the US, the butchers of a Wal-Mart in Jacksonville, Texas tried to unionize and the entire department was also closed. Wal-Mart in Québec is not officially allowed to be considered a food supermarket because it does not sell 51 % of food. Wal-Mart lost in the Supreme Court of Canada against its employees of Jonquière because it was illegal to close like that as a result of unionization according to the Code du travail du Québec.There is a greater political diversity in terms of factions. You have political flavors that would feel quite European and that would not have as much audience elsewhere. The US is not our only reference in politics and I would say it’s been at least one century it’s been less influential than other sources. A party like Québec solidaire would not exist anywhere else in North America and it’s similar to Podemos or la France insoumise in Europe. Also conservatives in Québec might not have some key features typical North American conservatives would have like religiosity and climate change denial.It never had puritan culture, so it’s less nervous about things like alcohol and sex. Puritanism is a foreign element and it remain foreign and exotic. This is reflected if the laws : the age of alcohol is 18, not 19 or 21. You are allowed to picnic with not-so-strong alcohol if you have food as well. The consumption of alcohol in Québec is greater than maybe all the rest of North America and it’s been so for maybe… uh… four centuries ? Priests already complained about that in the 17th century. There once existed a temperance and prohibition movement in Québec but it was more for internal reasons for this society, dues to actual abuses but not to a puritan culture. In the beginning Québec resisted that movement but eventually the issue of alcoholism in the early XXth century was too great to ignore. Even so, Montréal was the place where anglo tourists went to have fun in the 1950’s and they still do. It has the typically European paradox of more alcohol and less alcoholism.(Blue : 18, Red : 21, Purple : 19)Like Mexico but unlike Anglos, our historical consciousness does not begin in 1775. While you could argue that this is a trait shared by cisappalachian US, the anglos often think in reference to the 19th century and think the 19th century is “old”. It’s less so in Québec. You can have a conference about Marguerite Bourgeoys, a 17th century figure, in a public place in Montréal and it’s crowded.We don’t make a fuss about abortions, at least not anymore. We have no Christian terrorists that attack them and it’s not discussed in Quebecer politics at all. There is not really a debate about this. Everyone is pro-choice (notice the “choice” part, it’s very important).It does not make a fuss about homosexuality like you see in the US. We don’t have to argue with stores that don’t want to serve “that kind of people”. The legalization of gay marriage in the Québec Civil Code was not controversial, people were pretty indifferent.About religion, Québec is more binary. When it was religious, it was squarely theocratic in a way that anglos never had known. When it’s irreligious, christianity is eliminated at a much deeper level. There is no middle ground.Quebecers are far, far more pacifist and far more skeptical against guns and have been consistently so for at least 120 years, despite it started with a similar gun culture in the 18th century. There are no war heroes in Québec for the XXth century, only martyrs. Our heroes are martyrs that resisted the war, not soldiers that did military exploits, despite we have several of these. “Militarism” and “military culture” perhaps died down somewhere in 1899. In history circles the culture from France of the school of the Annales, that had contempt for military history, had some influence and so our military history was often written by outsiders. Léo Major is probably more famous outside Québec than within it and you had to wait until 2018 to have a park with his name in Longueuil. Our military figures are not prophets in their country. Our WW2 hero is Camillien Houde, that was put in a concentration camp for calling to disobey the conscription, instead of military heroes like Paul Triquet or Léo Major or Jacques-Alfred Dextraze, that are much less famous. A WW2 soldier like Laurent Melençon was proud to NOT take part to active duty on the front. He was a proud Zombie, instead of finding that shameful. You can’t use the figure of “the veteran” in Québec or say “Support our troops” like it’s done in the US to stir passions, it would probably be met with indifference if not hostility. The entire US passion for military matters is completely alien and unthinkable in Québec.Climate skepticism is weak in Québec, it’s a fringe movement from hardcore conservatives.University tuition is lower than anywhere but Mexico or Newfoundland.In Québec, a lot of things were nationalized, and it’s not really regarded as a terrible oppression from the government, and historically this society hated communists perhaps as badly as anglos did if not more so it’s not really related to any marxist foundation at all but rather a replacement for the roles that had the Church previously. Alcohol, lottery, cannabis, electricity are state companies and Quebecers are okay with the State to be more powerful and have more impact than anglos typically do. Before that, the Church had a similar influence in society. This would be anathema in anglo societies. The Catholic Church, before anything else, is a government, the government of the Papal States/Vatican State (that replicates the structure of the late Diocletian Roman government), with a administrative structure (provinces, dioceses, parishes) and with a law (Canon Law). Therefore, “the government” was always a major actor, the only difference across time is which government it was.The notion that society is made of “communities”, instead of the republican notion that there is only one diverse national community, is not a consensus in Québec and is an object of debate. Anything that comes from anglo minds in that regard like “multiculturalism” (as a set of policies) is debated and challenged and is not obvious or obviously legitimate. It’s not really due to a desire to imitate Europe but simply because a small society busy to fight for its survival cannot afford to not have a dominant culture, it’s a matter of survival. It cannot pretend to be universal and pretend to be culturally neutral. The entire history of Québec is about difference, specificity, being apart. It’s not a society that can afford to pretend it has no bias, it has a lot of biases, because it’s a matter of survival to have some, and it does not try to be culturally neutral. So this place never pretended to be a mini-UN. It has a dominant culture and you integrate it or you don’t. Only Empires can afford to pretend to be culturally neutral since they have the luxury of being powerful enough to assimilate everybody to them, so their bias can remain implicit. Québec is not an Empire, is not capable of doing that. It has to fight to remain distinctive.While this might not be exclusive to Québec, it is somewhat rare : all of its electricity, all of it, is made from renewable sources. There is no coal or nuclear (it stopped when Gentilly-2 was closed). This is not much usual in North America.Montréal is not yet overpriced. It’s still possible to live there. It’s comparable to Madrid. It costs less than Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Austin, San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston and New York City.Québec is the most taxed state of North America and while people sometimes grumble about that they tolerate it in a way anglos would not. 19th century visitors were surprised that everyone in Québec paid the tithe to the Church despite everyone could legally avoid that if they wanted and Quebecers paid manorial rents to their lords until 1940. While there was fiscal revolts in the history of Québec like the Guerre des Éteignoirs, it never had the same cultural importance it had for the anglos. The entire culture of “taxation without representation” was absent since the beginning and we never really cared about that. Québec has 38 % of taxes compared to its GDP, while the OECD mean value is 34 %. It’s similar to Greece, Norway and the Netherlands. The ROC had 30 % and the US 26 %.The source of the civil law is not the Common Law. It was the Custom of Paris, that was re-codified in a more modern way in 1866 using the Code civil de la Louisiane and the Code Napoléon to modernize it. It therefore does not follow British procedures, or medieval titles and does not refer to fundamental English constitutional texts like the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights or stuff like that.A notaire in Québec as a result is from the French tradition from the Custom of Paris and is more important job than a notary in the Common Law. It’s more prestigious to be a notaire than a notary and many notaires in the 19th century were influential figures in society. For a long, long time, the dominant classes in Québec were all lawyers, doctors and notaires because this was the most profitable jobs you could do having a classical greco-latin education in a seminary (and it’s still visible when you look at what jobs do the MNA in Québec). For a long time, they were more important than things like engineers and scientists, that almost did not exist in this society. For the same reason as Québec, only Louisiana has notaires instead of notaries. In Québec, notaires were often the first bankers in many villages, before actual banks would come.Due to the French language, it is culturally not limited to the anglophone world or anything that gets eventually translated in English so it is interested in several areas of the world that are neglected by anglos. In Québec schools, you are introduced to the canons of French literature like Molière, Victor Hugo, and you are also introduced to canons of Quebecer literature like Gabrielle Roy, Grignon, etc. Québec seems to have more presence in business in francophone Africa than any other North American state. The amount of Maghrebi and Haitians is greater in Québec than usual. Québec is part of the world that cares about Tintin, something USAmericans did not know before 2011. Québec is part of the world that cares about Astérix (despite it joined that crowd 20 years later) and in fact identifies a lot to it. In Québec you can do editorial comics showing Tintin and Astérix. No USAmerican would understand that. In Québec, Belgian comics are part of the basic cultural toolbox you are expected to have. Quebecer bande-dessinée is influenced by the Belgian canons, something the US is oblivious about. When Alexandre Astier does a new Astérix movie in France, it’s always going to be a hit in Quebecer cinemas, like the recent Astérix et le secret de la potion magique and the Cinema section of Le Devoir will talk about it. French TV shows like Fort Boyard, La Cible (=> Le Cercle), The Voice (=> La Voix), Tout le monde en parle reached Québec, that has had its own versions of these, and the opposite also happens (like Un gars une fille and Les Invicibles adaptations in France).Can Asterix Finally Conquer the US?(Any European and any Quebecer would understand this obvious reference, but it would be obscure in the US.)(A book like that could not have been published in the US)Québec is not just the most bilingual place, for obvious reasons (the same reason as Belgium and Cameroon), but also the most trilingual place. Knowledge of either Spanish or German by local natives is proportionally more common. Anybody with at least a CÉGEP Education in Québec is likely to know three languages and I know a lot of people that learned either languages both in older generations than mine or within my generation, and there exist a trilingual MBA. On the Quora Español you can find Jean-François Martel and this is the only Quora version he participates to, and he’s much better in that language than I am. Mylène Truchon is part of the crowd that learned German (but she’s not on the Quora Deutsch). As usual, it’s precisely because Québec is officially unilingual such a thing is possible. It’s also trough the regular Québec Public University Network system I could begin to learn some Japanese and Ancient Greek and I have an acquaintance that took classes of Simplified Mandarin. This is all built in. No need to look for private lessons.Montreal is Canada’s most trilingual city, StatsCan data shows | The StarFor some reason anglos hate public broadcasters : CBC is hated and I suspect PBS is also under-appreciated, but Quebecers love more their Radio-Canada. In fact, it has had a certain historical and social importance. René Lévesque was famous for having educated an entire generation in politics in Point de mire. Several major scandals in recent history in Québec were unearthed by Enquête or La Facture, other public television shows. Quebecers trust more and watch more their public television.Francophone student culture is very, very different in Québec. All the English concepts like “somophores”, “fraternities”, “sororities” are absent and are exotic things only English universities have. In Québec, student unions have the same legal frame than worker unions according to the Loi sur l’accréditation et le financement des associations d’élèves ou d’étudiants and are rich, powerful and compulsory. There was at least six major student strikes in the history of Québec and student politics spill more often to become pan-quebecer issues in Québec. There is a greater consciousness of the figure of the student being a social agent having a public role in society. A lot of Quebecer politicians today were involved in student politics in their youth in now gone organizations such as the UGEQ. Many episodes that changed history were due to the students, like the famous McGill français demonstration, or the 1968 Fall strike that led to the creation to Québec’s public network of universities. In the 1930’s, there were important anticommunist demonstrations caused by the students like the demonstrations against 4 delegates of the Second Spanish Republic (Sarasola Affair). Students politics are also quite complex in Québec as there are many different political structures, rival organizations that hate each other and each university has its own culture and there is more ideological diversity than people might think (it’s just that certain sides are louder than others). In fact, the party Québec solidaire has a political structure very typical of Montréal student associations so it does influence regular politics. Both labor unions and student unions also commonly use the Morin Code, a descendent of the Robert's Rules of Order.Des milliers d'étudiants en grève pour des stages payés | MARIE-EVE MORASSE | ÉducationThe structure of the Education system is unique in the world due to the existence of CÉGEP and the numbers of the grades is completely different. There is no such thing as 11th or 12th grades in Québec. US measurements like SAT and GPA do not exist and Québec has its own statistical instruments like the R score. In Québec, GPA means Gestation pour autrui (and it is illegal but not criminal), not Grade Point Averages.For some reason, colonial architecture in the US has bricks. Bricks in Québec was unknown before the English. Anything from New France that survived was in « pierre des champs » and sometimes there was lime. The oldest architectures in Québec are reminiscent of Normandy or Britanny.For obvious reasons, due to catholicism as opposed to the various protestants, churches in Québec are generally much more sumptuous and Quebecer churches in New England also tend to be more monumental than usual for the place. In Québec, even a small village can have an absurdly enormous basilica. Churches always stand out, while in the US, a 19th century Quebecer like Eugène Roy complained in his journal that he could not find the church because it was not distinctive enough from the rest of the architecture.Like all the other catholics countries, you have an absurdly high number of places that have parish names that start by Saint (like San/Santa in the Hispanic world and São in Brazil). In Québec, directories of municipalities have a section just for the Saint and subdivide it in more details, because there are too many of them. Sometimes the parochial name was removed (like Saint-Henri-de-Mascouche -> Mascouche) but it doesn’t always work.Anglos tend to copy the names of European cities like Paris, Berlin, London. It’s not common in Québec. I can think of Fontainebleau and Montréal (due to a lordship of Montréal in France, and there are about 40 Montréal). For Laval, it’s due to a bishop that was of the Montmorency-Laval dynasty, and it’s possible one of the Laval in France was their lordship, but it’s not really due to any of the places called Laval in France. There is also Montmagny due to a governor, so for the same reason it’s possible that one of those in France was the lordship of that family. There was a New Glasgow but it was eaten by Sainte-Sophie.A thing anglos often do in the US is to have their DNA sequenced and identify genetic markers associated to many regions. I never saw francophones doing that, for the simple reason it’s not necessary. The parish records are much more reliable than DNA sequencing to figure out the accurate origins of someone. While it would be an enormous work to do, it would be possible to make a database of the entire population of Québec and know the genealogy of almost everyone since the 16th century with high accuracy and figure the precise genealogical links between everybody. I contributed to do that for an entire city and while it’s not completed, it’s likely that in a few years we will have a total knowledge of all the inhabitants in existence from the origins to 1922, and that later it will be expanded to go on from there and for the oldest families we know their entire genealogy from the 17th century to now as they cooperated to the project to give the most recent data as well. You can track people wherever they go within Québec since they are always going to be in a parish record somewhere so you can know when they moved during their life. When they transited by Montréal for any reason we can even know their apartment number due to the Lowell’s and all the co-tenants. we can know the plot of lands of any generation thanks to the terriers and cadastres and it’s mostly online. We know all the contracts and agreements they ever did, it’s all in the notary funds. All of this can be cross-referenced, and if we wanted we could be even more megalomaniac than the Chinese in terms of big data and know more details about the population than they do. This is why it’s possible to pick any celebrity and tell how many generations ago anyone had common ancestors with them so it’s a common hobby to figure this out for Céline Dion and Hillary Clinton. When someone was indigenous it was also written. Why one would need DNA sequencing when you can know so much? We can take a snapshot of any era and have a clear picture and who lives where and who is related to whom and we can even guess who is friend with whom an we definitely know who hates whom due to petty trials. It’s possible to write a biography of almost any nobody in existence in Québec, there are enough data to do that. I once did that for a nobody that appeared often enough in trials to pick my attention and I could have made of myself a psychologue and deduce from his childhood why he turned into a jerk later in life and I could tell all the neighbors he hated and the reasons of their bickering… because we know everything. We often know what things they had in their houses due to their testaments. Sometimes we even know what books they possessed. We know all the gossips because they were written in journals and know when Mrs Someone from the nearby town came to visit in which day. Québec is a multi-generational gigantic gossip machine, we can not only gossip about contemporaries but ancestors as well. It’s ridiculously fun to write history here.

Yes. Well, most likely, almost certainly.Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by the State of Texas in 1991 for the alleged murder by arson of his 3 children. The problem is, the conclusion of arson due to burn patterns and alligator charring, was found to be false in later experiments. You see, for decades (centuries?) police and fire investigators relied on what they had been taught by their predecessors and trainers. If someone drew a conclusion, and taught their underlings that “x pattern means y happened”, then most underlings accepted it as truth, when in fact it was often just the conclusion of that one person. Experimental evidence in forensic work has been a LONG time developing, and it’s still developing. We are still finding out that long-held theories aren’t as iron-clad as we thought, and that “x” pattern could have actually been caused by numerous things instead of just 1 or 2.This article mentions several things that had long been taken as “proof” of use of accelerant (aka arson):Dispelling Myths of Origin & Cause Investigations - Expert ArticleSo, when Willingham’s wife/mother of his children was out shopping for Christmas presents, the house burned, killing their 2 year old, and 1 year old twins. Prosecutors charged that Willingham set the fire and killed the children in an attempt to cover up abuse of the girls, even though there was no evidence of child abuse. A psychologist claimed Willingham’s rock n roll posters (Iron Maiden & Led Zeppelin) signified “violence and death” and the Led Zeppelin fallen angel poster was an indicator of cult-type activities (this was during the Satanic Panic, when law enforcement, religious fundamentalists, and other deranged people were making up all kinds of nonsense about satanic cults sacrificing children and animals and being a danger to all. It was a bunch of hooey, but taken very seriously by people who should have been able to reason a tad bit better.)“Psychiatrist James Grigson, known by the moniker "Dr. Death" for his repeated testimony as an expert witness in which he recommended the death penalty, said that a man of Willingham's criminal history was an "extremely severe sociopath" and was incurable. Grigson had served as an expert witness for the prosecution in murder trials across the state of Texas. Prior to his death, he was expelled by the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians for unethical conduct.The APA said that Grigson had violated the organization's ethics code byarriving at a psychiatric diagnosis without first having examined the individuals in question, and for indicating, while testifying in court as an expert witness, that he could predict with 100 per cent certainty that the individuals would engage in future violent acts. “However, those who knew Willingham did not draw the same conclusion. It is true that Willingham was not a saint: he was allegedly abusive towards his wife, but not his children. “His former probation officer said he had never demonstrated bizarre or sociopathic behavior and that "He was probably one of my favorite kids." Bebe Bridges, a former judge who was often on the "opposite side" of Willingham in the legal system, and who had sent him to jail for stealing, said that she could not imagine him killing his children. "He was polite, and he seemed to care," she said.Willingham was convicted (no wonder, given what the prosecutors alleged, and “medical professionals” claimed). His appeals were largely ignored, and he was executed in 2004.But there had been significant research into burn patterns and what they indicated (see the “Dispelling Myths of Origin” article linked above) in the 1990s, and forensic fire experts were convinced that the case against Willingham rested on junk science, inaccurate claims. “Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."In June 2009, the State of Texas ordered a re-examination of the case. In August 2009, eighteen years after the fire and five years after Willingham's execution, a report conducted by Dr. Craig Beyler, hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case, found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained". Beyler said key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham's trial was "hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics".”Remember when Rick Perry was asked during the 2016 campaign if he ever regretted an execution? He said no, he couldn’t think of any. Funny, because as governor of Texas, Rick Perry actually replaced 3 of the members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission the day before their review was to be released, in an attempt to get the commission to change their findings that arson could not be substantiated.By 2016, it was well known that the State of Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man, and at the very least executed a man whose guilt had not been proven. Neither Rick Perry nor George W. Bush, and certainly not the buffoons now heading our state, have ever admitted the error of this, and certainly not their complicity with killing a probably-innocent man. Cameron Todd Willingham - WikipediaGeorge Stinney was another person, a boy more than a man, who was executed for a crime he did not commit. George Stinney - Wikipedia But then, when you look at African-American hangings, execution, and lynchings during the first half of the 20th Century and before, there were certainly many, many more who were killed, if not executed by order of the court, they were killed by law enforcement or allowed to be removed from the jail and murdered by mobs, or they never even made it to jail and were killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Brothers Thomas and Meeks Griffin were two such innocent men who were executed by the state. South Carolina pardons black brothers convicted of 1913 killingTexas has killed others who were later shown to be almost certainly innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted and executed. Ruben Cantu, Ruben Cantu - Wikipedia Carlos deLuna Carlos DeLuna - Wikipedia and David Wayne Spence The Wrong Man were convicted of crimes they probably did not commit. Now, that doesn’t mean these guys were choir boys. Cantu, for example, was in a gang stealing cars and selling them to chop shops. He had shot other people. But it’s likely that he was railroaded because one policeman had it out for him, and got detectives to build a case around him, rather than find him during the course of an investigation.Florida executed Jesse Tafero who, while certainly a criminal (he was on parole when he and his family were with a man who killed 2 troopers), was not the one who shot the gun that murdered these two men. In fact, he apparently had not shot any gun that day. Tafero and his wife were both sentenced to death, while the man who actually murdered the officers was sentenced to life in prison. Tafero was executed, the state eventually found that the evidence against his wife, the same evidence that had been used to convict and kill Tafero, was invalid, so she was released. The man who actually fired the shots that killed the two law enforcement officer was released on parole, 18 years after the crime. When Jesse Tafero was executed in 1990, jailers used a synthetic sponge instead of a natural sponge between the top of his head and the electrocution cap. The natural sponge holds water better and is more conductive. Six inch flames shot out of the top of Tafero’s head, and it is claimed the smell of burnt flesh could be smelled in that wing of the prison days afterward. It took 3 jolts of the electric chair, and 7 minutes, to kill Jesse Tafero. It’s alleged that he was an inspiration for Stephen King’s _The Green Mile_. Jesse Tafero - WikipediaIt is likely that when Missouri executed Larry Griffin, they executed the wrong man for murder. Investigation Finds Executed Man May Have Been InnocentThis page gives a few others who were likely innocent of the crimes for which they were executed, but it can’t really be proven conclusively: Executed But Possibly InnocentI’ve heard of numerous other convictions, usually given a sentence of life in prison, where people were convicted of murder, when the only “evidence” against them were things such as long hair, smoking marijuana, listening to various kinds of music (heavy metal, punk, psychodelic, you name it), being angry and disaffected (you know, like 90% of late teens/young adults). Using such flimsy evidence, people have been convicted of crimes like kidnapping, rape, and murder, when there was (later, because a lot of these were in the 70’s and 80’s) no DNA of theirs anywhere near the crime scene or on the victim, nothing to link the accused with the victim, plenty of evidence showing someone else did it, etc. Jurors (and others) assumed police were honest. Jurors and others assumed that if a prosecutor was prosecuting a person for a serious crime, they must have substantial evidence that the person committed that crime.People believed law enforcement when they claimed that Satanists were everywhere, defiling babies and sacrificing children. Accused served decades in prison for sexual child abuse which they did not commit, or even if ultimately found not guilty, their lives were ruined. See the McMartin Preschool case: “The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history, should serve as a cautionary tale. When it was all over, the government had spent seven years and $15 million dollars investigating and prosecuting a case that led to no convictions. More seriously, the McMartin case left in its wake hundreds of emotionally damaged children, as well as ruined careers for members of the McMartin staff. No one paid a bigger price than Ray Buckey, one of the principal defendants in the case, who spent five years in jail awaiting trial for a crime (most people recognize today) he never committed.” A toddler allegedly told his mother that 25 year old Ray Buckey had molested him. Even though an examination of the toddler showed no signs of physical or sexual abuse, and he couldn’t identify Buckey from a lineup, Buckey’s home was raided, and things such as a rubber duckie, a graduation robe, a teddy bear, and Playboy magazines as solid evidence that the man had sexually molested this boy. (Because what innocent 25 year old man has Playboys lying around, right?) The McMartin preschool case was started and kept aflame by a deranged drama queen who thrived on attention, and made up a story about her son being molested. It cost people years in prison, ruined reputations, ruined lives, tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense fees, and it cost California $15 million, all because a drama queen wanted attention. The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial: A CommentaryFran and Dan Keller, who ran another preschool outside Austin, Texas, were similarly accused of grotesque horrors during the Satanic Panic. Oak Hill satanic ritual abuse trial - Wikipedia Children were coached to claim all kinds of horrible treatment by the Kellers. They were sentenced to 48 years in prison, but were released after 22 years, when the evidence against them completely fell apart upon examination. There was no physical evidence of child abuse, the children had been coached, one adult had, under intense, prolonged police examination, pled guilty to child abuse, but recanted the next day. By the time Fran and Dan were released from prison, they were in their 60’s, and had nothing. Their home and business had been confiscated by the state; all the savings they had in the world had gone to legal defense. They were eventually found “factually innocent” 4 years after they were released from prison, but during those 4 years, before they got any reparation whatsoever for their false imprisonment, these two crippled 60+ year olds who had been worn down in the prison system, had to try to make ends meet as best they could in a city where 1 bedroom apartments go for $1200 and up.So even though the Kellers and the staff of McMartin Preschool were not sentenced to death, their lives were completely ruined by mass hysteria and false claims by law enforcement and medical “experts” who claimed they knew with certainty, things about which they didn’t know jack shit. Words like “indicative of” and “consistent with” are nebulous. Eating is consistent with life. That doesn’t mean I broke into a grocery store and took all the food. Every time I hear that a gun found in someone’s possession is “consistent with” a bullet from a crime scene, I cringe. I asked my friend Google how many .22 rifles there are in the world, and then in the United States. Google failed me on that one. Oh, it gave me plenty of info on the .22, like it’s the most common caliber in the world, but even Google, with all its computing power, seems to be clueless on the number of .22 rifles that exist in this country, much less the world. And Google knows (virtually) everything. I did, however, find a link for an article that tried to figure out how many “assault rifles” there are in the U.S. It’s impossible to give a number, because there is no standard definition of “assault rifle”. It’s generally assumed to be a semi-automatic capable of holding a magazine of more than 5 or 6 bullets, but beyond that, there are various characteristics that some people describe as “assault weapons” while others don’t. Having said that, when looking at “modern sporting rifle” (which loosely overlaps with what people generally consider “assault rifles”), “according to a 2015 report by a trade group, roughly one in 10 guns produced each year is a modern sporting rifle. In raw numbers, American gunmakers produced and imported 8.5 million such rifles between 1990 and 2012, and about one and two million annually every year since. Do the math and it works out to between 15 and 20 million modern sporting rifles now in circulation, which includes those owned and used by law enforcement.” I believe that a great many of these, though certainly not all, take a .223 caliber bullet. Other popular cartridges are the 7.62x39mm M43 round favored by the Soviet bloc countries in their AK-47s, and the standard NATO round of 5.56x45mm found in most U.S. military weapons (the kind most soldiers carry—-of course there are bigger guns which take much larger rounds).So having explained all that, if someone testified that they found a gun in someone’s possession that was “consistent with” the bullet found at the crime scene, but the only consistency was that it was a .22 bullet, what does that mean? It’s like the accused, AND VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER FIREARM-OWNING AMERICAN, is in the suspect pool. That’s meaningless “evidence”. But if bullets fired from the suspect weapon have lands and grooves that very closely match the bullet found at the crime scene, *that’s* significant. Likewise, if a .223 bullet was found, and it was claimed that it was “consistent” with a .223 rifle, well, so? There are LOTS of .223 rifles out there. Very popular round. But again, if there is more substantial evidence tying THAT firearm to THAT bullet, then it is very meaningful. But if a bullet was a 2mm Kolibri, and a suspect was found with a 2mm Kolibri pistol, then THAT would be strong evidence, as there were only about 1000 of the 2mm Kolibris ever produced, and the entire line was discontinued in 1938. If a 2mm Kolibri was found at a crime scene, then I think it’s safe to say that every 2mm Kolibri pistol owner in the country is suspect, because there are so darned few of them.I know that was a very long digression. It just goes to show that “experts” use all kind of language when testifying, that conveys FAR more significance than the evidence actually has. At Cameron Willingham’s trial, the fire investigator testified that there was “definite” use of an accelerant, when in reality, the only evidence of an accelerant found was on the porch, close to the door, where they had left a gas can for the lawnmower. Sure, the gas can leaked from the heat of the fire, and gas (accelerant) leaked out onto the area around the gas can. That did not mean that Willingham set his house on fire. Doctors testified that a vaginal tear on a child was “definitive proof” of sexual abuse, then later discovered that they were completely wrong—-it was not definitive proof, there were many other ways a girl could sustain such an injury. Such definitive, declarative testimony by “experts” can not only send a person to prison for life, it can killa fella.

Another school shooting. 17 victims. How will gun owners once again convince us more gun ownership makes us safer?Brace yourselves, wall of text incoming:I have a serious problem with people telling me major crimes happening many states away from my own are somehow my responsibility or fault, and that I should share in some sort of collective guilt. I should engage in open dialogue and concede at least some of my own rights, despite the fact that I live in a state (Idaho) with the 6th lowest murder and non-negligent homicide rate per capita in the United States, while simultaneously being the 6th highest rate of gun ownership per capita. Don’t even get me started on unknown or noncompliant firearms, my state doesn’t like to enforce federal gun laws and recently went permitless concealed carry for anyone who can legally possess a firearm.Before you ask me to convince you that more gun ownership is better or safer (because it isn’t, it’s far more complicated than you or other answers here disingenuously make it out to be), you’re going to have to convince me why I must engage in discussion about restricting and conceding my own rights here in one of the safest states in the union, based on major crimes occurring hundreds or thousands of miles away.Per 1,000 residents, Idaho has a property crime rate of 17.44, a violent crime rate of 2.3, and specifically per 100,000 residents, a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 1.9. This puts us at about the 5th lowest property crime rate, 5th lowest violent crime rate, and 6th lowest murder/non-negligent homicide rate out of all 50 U.S. states. Idaho has an estimated 24.2 firearms per 1,000 residents (probably more, let’s be honest), putting us at the 6th highest number of guns per capita.But Rose, what about Sandy Hook? Connecticut has a property crime rate of 18.08 (higher than Idaho), a violent crime rate of 2.27 (roughly the same as Idaho), and specifically per 100,000 residents, a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 3.3 (higher than Idaho). What’s your point?But what about San Bernardino? California has a property crime rate of 25.53 (significantly higher than Idaho), a violent crime rate of 4.45 (significantly higher than Idaho), and specifically per 100,000 residents, a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 4.8 (TWO AND A HALF TIMES HIGHER than Idaho). What’s your point?But what about that church in Texas? Texas has a property crime rate of 27.6 (significantly higher than Idaho), a violent crime rate of 4.34 (significantly higher than Idaho), and specifically per 100,000 residents, a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 4.8 (TWO AND A HALF TIMES HIGHER than Idaho). What’s your point?But what about the Aurora movie theater? Colorado has a property crime rate of 27.41 (significantly higher than Idaho), a violent crime rate of 3.43 (higher than Idaho), and specifically per 100,000 residents, a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 3.2 (higher than Idaho). What’s your point?But what about Las Vegas? Nevada has a property crime rate of 25.87 (significantly higher than Idaho), a violent crime rate of 6.78 (THREE TIMES HIGHER than Idaho), and specifically per 100,000 residents, a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 6.2 (OVER THREE TIMES HIGHER than Idaho). What’s your point?I live in a rural farming community. I own several guns. I like to go target shooting. My husband hunts. We carry when we’re out hiking or camping and expect that we could run into a moose or bear. We have guns in case we need them for vermin control, like the mountain lion that was trying to get into the chicken coop and watching us from the back yard—where our then 5 year old daughter would play. Mountain lions kill people, for those not in the know. Moose are flighty, aggressive, and dangerous. I don’t think I need to explain bears.Rose Swan's answer to Why do farmers need guns?I also own firearms for home defense. I don’t expect that I will ever have to defend myself or my home against other homo sapiens, but I’d rather be prepared than sorry if something like that ever happened. Somebody in a more densely populated city with better funded law enforcement might say “that’s what the police are for.” Sorry, the police don’t even come to my house. I live miles out of city limits (a city of ~2,000 people I might add) and I’m in the sheriff’s department’s jurisdiction. Do you know how often I see sheriff’s deputies while I’m out and about? A couple times a week.In the movies 911 is called or otherwise alerted to some disturbance and help arrives in minutes, if not seconds. Here in the real world rural response time is closer to 30–45 minutes. Maybe 10 if you’re lucky and there’s a deputy nearby already. Not that it matters, because the average interaction time between criminal and victim is 90 seconds. Nobody is going to save you in 90 seconds. Nobody. Least of all out here, where my neighbors may not hear me scream, and if I manage to call for help, they’ll be too late and if I’m lucky I’m not maimed or dead.Here’s a story. I was living in a small town when I was in high school, and I was babysitting a toddler whose mother worked late. I heard somebody clomping very conspicuously on the front porch. I heard them try the door. It was locked, so they tried to force it. I yelled at them that I have a gun and I fucking well know how to use it and they ran off. The homeowner kept a 9mm in the closet, I knew where it was.Later she got home, I told her what happened, we laughed about it a little and I left. 3 hours later she called our house. She’d just called the police because somebody tried to break down her front door, failed, pounded and screamed at her through it, broke down her fence and tried the back door. She told him the same thing, she has a gun and she’s calling the police. He went next door and attacked her neighbor instead. She was his target all along, he just had the wrong house at first. Meanwhile my aunt had to listen to several minutes of her screaming and pleading for him not to kill her before the police arrived. He beat her and raped her.Can you imagine what his drunk dumb ass might have done to my aunt when—not if, but when he broke in? And what about the baby? He put the neighbor in the hospital.Mind you all of this happened before the police arrived. Had he made it into her house she would have had to shoot him, or she would have choked and been the one hospitalized, or dead.Hopefully that will at least convince you to take gun crime and gun control discussions on a more appropriate state-by-state basis, and consider all the factors that make people like me wary of gun control discussion and advocacy. Sweeping regulations and reform at the federal level are gross abuses of power, incredibly negligent, sloppy, lazy, ill-conceived, and based on profound ignorance.But if that doesn’t convince you, I’ll continue on.First, there is no standard definition of “mass shooting”. It’s generally described as a shooting in which 4 or more indiscriminately-targeted victims are killed, excluding the perpetrator. This is in line with the FBI’s definition of “mass murder”. Another common definition is the shooting of 5 or more people, with or without death involved, without a “cooling-off” period. Mass shootings are isolated incidents in that in the U.S. they are rarely connected to one-another, and generally are not committed by groups and organizations. They are not true isolated incidents, in that the profoundly disturbed individuals who commit these heinous crimes often displayed a behavioral pattern of escalation such as domestic violence or criminal activity related to the people or place the shooting takes place.The church shooting in Texas is an example of this escalation of behavior. Devin Patrick Kelly had a documented history and criminal record involving attacks on his wife and child. Following his divorce, police were involved in another domestic dispute between Kelley and his then girlfriend, whom he eventually married. He began sending threatening messages to his mother-in-law, who frequented the church he would later attack, though she was not at church that day. I think it’s pretty obvious who his intended target was all along, though.Similarly in the Plano, Texas mass killing last year, in which Spencer Hight murdered 8 people, including his ex-wife, in her home. His ex had begun divorce proceedings, and after the shooting her mother claimed that Hight had been a physically violent alcoholic.In fact, a study using FBI data found that 54% of mass shootings occurring from 2009–2016 in the United States involved domestic or family violence. In 42% of these cases, shooters displayed a number of warning signs and escalating behavior indicating that they were a danger to themselves and/or others. These warning signs included threatened, attempted, or successful acts of violence toward themselves or others; violation of protective orders; or “evidence of ongoing substance abuse.”Furthermore, and here is where I get more on point, 34% of these shooters were prohibited from legally possessing firearms. Gun laws did not stop 1/3 of these shooters carrying out their crimes. Neither did laws regarding assault, homicide, discharging a firearm in city limits, controlled substance laws, etc, which did not stop any mass shooters, obviously.And more to the other answers, only 10% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. A gun-free zone is an area where people are prohibited from carrying firearms and there are no armed security staff. The vast majority of mass shootings occur in private homes.Mass shootings are not interconnected incidents. They are not a commentary on society, they are not the fault of gun owners. They are typically worst-case-scenario outcomes to ongoing domestic violence situations, and, statistically, they are in fact still very rare. Terrible, tragic, mind-boggling, sensational, but rare.Mass shootings always spawn questions like this. People start arguing about gun laws, particularly across-the-board laws at the federal level with absolutely no regard to individual states’ cultures and violent crime rates.If more people were using arson to kill multiple people we would not be having this discussion. There would be no debate over stricter oversight of common household accelerants, matches, or lighters. We wouldn’t be debating whether or not we should require licenses and background checks to purchase gasoline, diesel, kerosene, or camp stove fuel. We wouldn’t be arguing about closing the Craigslist loophole where people can buy matches or lighters under the table without registering them.If more mass killers used bombs we wouldn’t be arguing about strict oversight, registration, and tracking of people who purchase manure. We wouldn’t be arguing about closing the Craigslist loophole where people buy manure directly from farmers in whatever quantities they wish, or implementing laws regarding how much a farmer’s cows can shit and how they dispose of it. We likely wouldn’t be discussing restricting the purchase if nitrogen fertilizers to registered, monitored plant nurseries only or requiring background checks to purchase.Why aren’t we discussing further restrictions on those who operate motor vehicles? From 2006–2016 on average 35,940.11 motor vehicle deaths. That’s slightly higher than overall gun deaths, and THREE TIMES HIGHER than the gun murder rate specifically. How are we going to bring this number down, what restrictions can we discuss and impose? Is it reasonable to restrict and impose upon the millions of responsible drivers because so many cannot drive responsibly, or because so many tragic accidents occur?“But Rose,” you might counter, “what about countries like Finland that have high gun ownership rates, low gun crime rates, and very strict gun control?” It’s true that Finland has very strict ownership requirements for firearms. They’re largely used for hunting, and license to own must be renewed every few years. Permits are easily and readily denied to anyone convicted of a crime or just acts sketchy enough. Guns must be locked up for safety, and emptied of ammunition if transported out of the home and not in use. Self defense is also not a permissible reason to apply for gun ownership or gun purchase in Finland. Finland has a gun homicide rate of around 0.26. Impressive.Finland also had two mass shootings at school, one in 2007 and another in 2008, with a combined death toll of 18.Moving on.Gun crime itself is not the most common cause of death in the U.S. According to the CDC the top 10 causes of death in the United States are:Heart diseaseCancerChronic lower respiratory diseasesAccidents (unintentional injuries)Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)Alzheimer’s diseaseDiabetesInfluenza and pneumoniaNephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosisSuicideGun deaths aren’t on that list. In fact, they aren’t even in the top 15.While guns are not anywhere near the most common cause of death in the U.S., they are the most commonly used weapon in homicides. I should note that this does not indicate that stricter gun laws would lower homicide rates, as 1/3 of mass shooters have clearly demonstrated that criminals will still use guns. In the event that criminals are magically prevented having guns because we wave our magic wands and make them all disappear, many of them will still find ways to threaten, injure, rape, or kill other people.Speaking of criminals, did you know that convicted felons, gang members, and career criminals are by far the most common perpetrators of homicide-by-gun? Let’s break down gun homicide statistics, shall we?In 2014 there were 33,594 gun deaths. Of those, 21,286 (a whopping 63%) were suicides. 85% of suicide victims are male, and over half of them are over the age of 45. This statistic doesn’t seem to distinguish all suicides from firearm-specific suicides. Interesting tidbit, though and a worthy topic for another conversation.11,008 (32%) were homicides, which for the purposes of this discussion are defined as murder and manslaughter. Of these homicides, over half are young men, and two thirds of those young men are black. Women are actually significantly less likely to be victims of gun-related homicide. Many studies and statistics since the 1980s have demonstrated that anywhere from 64–80% of these homicides are gang-related. Many occur during the commission of other felony crimes.Lastly, 1,200 (3.5%) include accidents or deaths of otherwise undetermined cause.People make the mistake of lumping all gun deaths together. In reality, the only thing they have in common is that a gun was involved. These deaths all ultimately occurred for a variety of very different reasons to very different people living in very different parts of the country under various different circumstances.Breaking down the statistics does not show a gun problem, it shows a suicide problem and a gang violence problem, and may also be tied to population density. For instance, over half of homicides in the U.S. occur in cities with a population of 100,000 or greater. The majority of drug and/or gang related killings also take place in large cities. More than a third of all large-city homicides occur in cities with a population of 1 million or greater. That’s right, more than a third of large-city homicides occur in only ~10 cities.It’s sensational to claim 33,000 people die from guns every year in the U.S. Wow. That’s a lot of people. That’s more people than the populations of many small, rural towns. But when you put it into perspective—that it isn’t even within the top 15 causes of death and that over half of them are suicides—it’s less sensational.It’s also sensational to place the U.S.’s crime rates next to the crime rates of other developed nations. The problem with comparing our violent crime, murder, and gun crime rates with, say, the U.K. is that each country defines violent crime and rape very, very differently.In 2013 a social media post made the claim that the violent crime rate in England and Wales was essentially five times that of the U.S. This was likely based on raw numbers without accounting for the fact that England and Wales considers many more definitions of “violent crime” than the U.S. does. Taken at face value, England and Wales had about 2200 violent crimes per 100,000 people while the U.S. had about 466 per 100,000.Wow. Such scandal. So sensational. Much controversy.A blogger went to work to debunk this by excluding reported crimes that are well beyond the scope of the FBI’s definition of violent crime. Using 2011 and 2012 statistics narrowed the gap considerably. The violent crime rate in England and Wales was in fact 775, and the U.S. was in fact 383. The crime rate in England and Wales was still considerably higher, but not sensationally so.Another reason you cannot compare crime rates between nations is that the rate of reporting may differ. The willingness to report crime and faith in law enforcement to prosecute crime also factor heavily into the numbers that eventually come to make up a nation’s various crime rate statistics. I’ll use rape as an example, which typically factors into violent crime statistics.If we look at rapes per capita based on rapes reported to and recorded by the authorities, the United States sits at the 14th highest internationally with 27.3 incidents of rape per 100,000 people. Sweden sits at a surprising 6th (63.5). Australia is the 11th highest (28.6).You know what Saudi Arabia’s statistic is? They report 0.3 incidents of rape per 100,000 people. Saudi Arabia’s statistic is based on some very different sets of data than many other countries. For starters, the country has almost no criminal procedure codes, and the few that exist are often ignored. Additionally, few if any laws specifically criminalize rape or outline its punishment. Furthermore, there are many potential drawbacks to reporting rape in Saudi Arabia, as there are many circumstances under which victims are also punished for their own victimization.In one internationally publicized case a victim of a gang rape was punished for being inadequately chaperoned when she and a male acquaintance were kidnapped and assaulted. She was raped 14 times. Her attackers received mostly lenient sentences ranging from 2–5 years. She was sentenced to 90 lashes for the tangentially related crime of riding in a car with a male who was not a relative.When she and her lawyer contested this and appealed the verdict, the rapists’ sentences were increased, now ranging from 2–9 years. However, her sentence was increased to 200 lashes and she was accused of attempting to manipulate the court and verdict by exploiting the media, because in Saudi Arabia nobody wants to talk or hear about rape because it harshes everyone’s mellow.Despite nothing legally wrong with the appeal, her lawyer was suspended from the case and his license revoked.What does this have to do with international gun crime reporting statistics? Everything. Saudi Arabia boasts an almost supernaturally low rate of rape per capita (0.3), but given their general attitude toward rape, reluctance to prosecute it let alone punish, and tendency to discourage reporting rape by punishing the victim, their reported rape statistics cannot be trusted as they are inherently flawed and incomplete. It’s entirely possible that Saudi Arabia does track these statistics and simply counts them among other crimes.Another flawed argument I frequently see is the idea that if we can reduce the amount of people who can legally own guns, that it will naturally result in fewer guns overall. People seem to cling to the pipe dream that this would not only actually happen, but would happen sooner rather than later.More comparisons to very different countries follow. Small island nations like the U.K. or Japan have few guns and very low gun crime! Just say they aren’t allowed anymore! Can’t import them or transport them across the border! It’s that simple!Except it isn’t. The United States can barely police the border between us and Mexico, never mind the border with Canada, which is even longer. And don’t get me started on our two very lengthy coastal borders. None of our borders can realistically be thoroughly policed enough to keep illegal firearms out. If that were so, surely the “war on drugs” would have ended a long time ago as well.That cocaine ban sure is going swell, by the way. Since it’s illegal and a felony it’s got to be getting really hard to come by as remaining stocks dwindle with no legal way to replenish them. Oh wait. The cocaine ban hasn’t stopped a gratuitous flow of cocaine (and other drugs) through our southern borders. And thanks to very clear immigration laws there’s obviously no need for concern over illegal aliens.Anyway back on topic. We cannot realistically police our borders. We could build a wall, but look at how angry that idea made everybody. That’s obviously not an option, but you have to admit it’d be pretty bitchin’. We could rename ourselves Mordor and not let anyone in.We can restrict or even ban guns, it isn’t going to stop people who wish to circumvent the law obtaining or even making their own guns. If somehow guns did in fact disappear, people would just switch to different kinds of weapons. One might counter “good, other weapons have lower fatality rates than guns do.” I would counter that this is actually a very weak and incredibly insensitive argument, because whether you’re raped at gunpoint or knifepoint, or bludgoned with a baseball bat and raped while unconscious, you still got raped.Or robbed. Or assaulted. Or threatened. Or coerced into something you would not otherwise do.As long as you say “no, it isn’t allowed,” the world will listen. Oh wait, no they won’t, least of all people who do not care for your laws. The same goes with gun laws—again, I cannot state this enough, 1/3 of mass shooters cannot legally possess firearms. That doesn’t stop them.Another common concern cited by gun control advocates is not homicides, but suicides. Roughly 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, after all. If only we could prevent them getting guns, they surely would not commit suicide! Sure they would. They’d find another way. Some of them wouldn’t, yay, you saved lives, but is that really the collective responsibility and burden of all gun owners to bear? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to improve access to mental healthcare and promote awareness and understanding?Besides, it’s not a provable or even logical claim. Japan, for instance, has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws but one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Not definitive, and more complicated than this due again to very different cultures, but it’s something to consider—if reducing suicides is the goal, people who are determined to go through with it will go through with it. A gun might be more opportunistic, but so’s a bottle of pills or a train.While we’re on the topic of mental health, some gun control advocates want to keep the mentally ill from having access to firearms. I have some problems with this. First of all, how do we define “mentally ill” and who gets to have the final say? Does anybody diagnosed with depression make the “no gun” list? Do people with a mental disorder diagnosis but no history of violence go on the “no” list? Do people who have expressed suicidal ideation in the past but got the help they needed and overcome it nonetheless go on the “no” list?This is where I have a problem. The overwhelming majority of the mentally ill are not a danger to themselves or others. Mental illness is not typically linked to crimes. In England and Wales, for instance, of the ~7 million people who have had, currently have, or are estimated to have in the future a mental health problem, only 50–70 of those 7 million people are involved in homicides each year. Victims more commonly report their assailant possibly being drunk or on drugs. Some studies have put the number of assailants suspected of drug influence as high as 30%. By contrast, only 1% of victims report believing their assailant’s violence was caused by mental illness.In fact, according to SANE Australia the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence and homicide, rather than the perpetrators.According to the American Psychiatry Association only 7.5% of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders were due to symptoms of mental illness. Is it fair to ban 92.5% of the mentally ill because 7.5% of them have committed crimes that may or may not even be violent or involve guns?I know this has been a long read, are you still with me?Good!Now that we have all of this data we can see a bigger picture. We can understand all the various and different circumstances that contribute to gun violence. Now that we can see how the only thing these crimes have in common is that they involved guns, I need to ask you a few questions.First, how do we know that reducing legal gun ownership across the board will have any significant impact on gun crime? How do we know this without erroneously and disingenuously relying on other countries’ crime data based on very different definitions of crime and very different rates of victim or police reporting?How can you convince me, based on all of the above, that terrible but isolated crimes are the collective responsibility of society as a whole, and that I should be penalized? Can you do so without emotional appeals? Because appeal to emotion is not a fact-based, logical argument, but rather an underhanded attempt to manipulate somebody into agreeing with you.Can you please tell me what an “assault rifle” is? Because there is no legal definition, and there is no widely-agreed-upon definition, and AR-type rifles killed fewer people than hands and feet did in 2016. Knives killed even more than hands and feet.Can you please tell me what a semi-automatic firearm is? I frequently see this erroneously used interchangeably with “assault weapon”. I find it alarming how many people know so little about guns yet presume to lecture everybody else on gun safety, “gun culture”, collective guilt and responsibility, and the particular firearms used in crimes. Are you aware of the differences between semi-automatic and fully-automatic?Can you elaborate on how cosmetic features like flash suppressors, folding stocks, and purely cosmetic features that share a passing resemblance to certain military weapons classifies a firearm as an “assault weapon” despite not altering its mechanical functionality? Is this based purely on a visual association with other firearms that are already heavily regulated, or is this based on actual evidence that a carry strap and folding stock make a gun more deadly or its wielder more likely to murder?How did the federal ban on assault weapons, which lasted from 1994 to 2004, impact gun crime? The ban targeted semi-automatic weapons generally not desirable for hunting. It was allowed to expire after a DoJ study found its effect inconclusive. Note that the weapons it targeted were rarely used in crime before the law was enacted, and that it was little more than lip service to look like the government was cracking down on crime.Do you really think we have a gun problem? Or do we have a drug problem? Or an alcohol problem? Or a gang problem? Does our higher crime rate across the board suggest a variety of varied cultural and population density factors, rather than a single gun problem?And finally, please refer to the map below. This map represents gun homicide rates per 100,000 by state in the United States. As the legend shows, darker colors represent higher gun homicides per capita. Now to my question. Can you please explain to me why all of the medium and lighter shaded states should collectively share in the responsibility and guilt regarding the gun homicide rates in the darker shaded states?Thanks for reading.Sources:Murder in the United States by state - WikipediaHere's where you're most likely to own a gunGuess which states make the top 10 list of most ‘heavily armed’?NeighborhoodScoutTexas church shooting and domestic violence: A large and disturbing patternFastStatsGun violence in the United States - WikipediaNational Institute of Justicehttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdfCountries Compared by Crime > Rape rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.comList of countries by intentional homicide rate - WikipediaList of countries by firearm-related death rate - WikipediaCrime in the United States - WikipediaGeneral statisticsMotor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - WikipediaSocial media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. doesViolence & mental healthMental Illness Not Usually Linked to Crime, Research FindsGun homicide rate map of America