Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/1/13 11:23 AM, kakalxlax wrote:
like all regimes with their brainwashing styles

If you're trying to draw a moral equivalance between the US and the DPRK...the point fails. I can post anything I want here or on Youtube. I can read/watch news from the UK, Russia, al Jazeera, China, SK, Japan, etc, etc, etc...even news from the DPRK itself.

On the other hand...when you tour the DMZ you'll see jammers aimed at keeping outside information from getting into the DPRK. In the North, TVs and radio tuners are set to only state channels with heavy penalties for altering your device.

At 3/31/13 11:33 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 3/30/13 11:04 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/30/13 08:08 AM, TheMason wrote: They would mostly target the 28K servicemembers (mostly Army & Air Force) in SK. If they attacked US bases outside of Korea and not the US mainland...they would target Hawaii.

Yokosuka, Atsugi, Yokohama?

It's also possible that they would attack Okinawa and Nagasaki...

Hawaii is the juicier target in terms of military value. Also, it is a US State.

What would make the targets you two suggested attractive is they could strike at two hated enemies at once. But my feel is Hawaii is the prize.

At 4/1/13 02:53 AM, Fim wrote: I remember watching a Vice doc on NK, and it just underlined the fact that they are really NOT a threat to any extent, they can't afford to keep half their population out of poverty, let alone afford a full scale war with arguably the biggest military force on the planet (and that's what it would entale if they attacked the south btw). Their economy and infrastructure has hardly moved on in 60 years.

The problem here is you're still looking at the threat through a Western lense. The ability to keep their population out of poverty is something that would effect a modern, developed country from being a threat. However, the DPRK is more like a feudal system (in fact, many scholars describe Juche and the regime as feudal communism). In short: the misery of the population is of little concern to the Kims (despite their socialist rhetoric).

Check out their propaganda. Their population is told DPRK aid workers are coming to the US to hand out coffee (that isn't made with snow) and cakes! This is one of the reasons that when North Koreans defect...they defect to China. In interviews and the literature, the vast majority of refugees cite the belief that life is worse in the ROK than in the DPRK as why they choose not to try to get to SK after sneaking into China.

Also, they indoctrinate their children from an early age to kill Americans.

So while I do not think military conflict is inevitable...I do not think it is wise to be dismissive because of the improvished state of their population or their economic infrastructure. Afterall, if there is one thing we can be sure of about Pyongyang is that the regime does not give a shit for anyone who is not named Kim.

I also found video of Iron Claw!

No, all you're telling me you is that you know that these massacres will continue, âEU¦

Again:
1) The publicâEUTMs perceptions of these features do not speak to their capabilities. This is a logical fallacy: appeal to ignorance.
2) You cannot articulate why these features cause harm to the public safety. Many of these features are useful and a few are necessary. For example barrel shrouds are necessary because they allow the shooter to grip the fore part of the rifle after firing multiple shots. This is not only true for the AR-15âEU¦but my .270 bolt action deer rifle and my wifeâEUTMs .44 Henry lever action. The only difference: the AR-15âEUTMs is called a barrel shroud and the other two rifles are called forestocks. ThatâEUTMs the necessary. Useful are pistol grips and M-4 style collapsible stocks. Pistol grips are useful for precision shooting because they provide a more stable for some people. M-4 style collapsible stocks allow for the shooter to adjust the stock to their individual reach. Therefore the same rifle or shotgun can be customized to myself, my wife, or a 12 year old learning to shoot. (Since the AR-15 and AK-47 are not high powered rifles, they are a good second step for a youth who is ready to shoot something bigger than a .22. Also, an AK or SKS would make an acceptable first deer rifle for youth hunters.) Other features such as bayonet lugs or grenade launchers do not have much, if any, practical application. Bayonets such as the SKS do keep the cleaning rod in place so thatâEUTMs something. The grenade launchers attached to AR-15s are actually flare launchers so if youâEUTMre lost in the woods I guess you can signal for help. So they have very little utilityâEU¦but are harmless.
3) These massacres will continue to happenâEU¦but guess what? AR-15s are not the gun of choice. The gun of choice, and capable of killing more people, are handguns. A ban on these rifles and/or features will not save lives. Furthermore, there is a move to incorporate explosives and chemical agents into these attacks. Something gun control does not address.
4) I do not hope my data shows anything. My data shows what it shows, and it is a reflection of reality whether you choose to believe it or not.

No. You have proven nothing. âEU¦

1) Hate to break it to youâEU¦but the internet has not changed things as you describe. To begin with: You still have to go through a licensed FFL dealer when buying from an onliner retailer or resaler! Now, someone may list something on CraigâEUTMs List or other classified style websitesâEU¦but they cannot just mail or ship the firearm to the buyer through the USPS or FedEx! So the internet has not changed buying guns as much as you seem to think.
1a) Secondly, the way in it which it has changed gun sales may actually be for the better. I went into Walmart last summer to buy some ammo. I was on my way to see a movie so I was dressed like a geek. The clerk was very adamant that I was buying the wrong kind of ammo for my AK. (It was the cheap Russian stuffâEU¦not good for the AR-15 because it is dirty and causes jamming; but an AK is reliable.) Now I had bought the same ammo from this guy a few times before, but I had been in my Air Force uniform so he assumed I knew what I was doing. The point being; if you were planning a spree shooting you would probably select an assault rifle. Now if you were buying it all through the internet a few things would not happen:
* You would most likely see the words Mil-Spec, Military Surplus, Military Grade, or Military whatever and gobble that ammo up thinking you were getting the super-duper killer ammo. When in reality you were buying stuff that would leave the most survivors. If you had to do face-to-face transactions, the clerk would be able to tell you are a new shooter and talk to you about the difference between ammo types. Oh yeahâEU¦this benefits him because the self-defense and hunting ammo is also more expensive as well as being more deadly!
* You would go in to buy a gun and in striking up a conversation, the dealer would ask you what you want the gun for. If you said anything other than target practice, they would most likely steer you towards a shotgun, handgun, or other type of rifle. Because if you say you want to hunt an AK would be a down sale, and a deer rifle would be a better price pointâEU¦and an AR-15 is not good to hunt with because it is so weak. So by going into the dealer you are going to get more educated on guns and make a more informed decision on killing power.
2) I have shown how competition does not work in this market as it does in other markets such as cars.
3) Furthermore, you are just thinking about how the market works. You lack any data or nuanced knowledge about it. On the other hand, I have been an observer in the gun market since before I was 18 and my dad would take me to gun shows and when he would buy guns. I have participated in it since I was 18, or 20 years ago. I know how the prices of guns have gone up despite the recession of 2000 and the financial crisis of 2008. The actual market does not act in accordance with your simplistic notions of supply and demand.
4) Guns do not depreciate in value like cars do. Sure some, like HiPoint, do because they are cheap guns. However, my AK is a Chinese variant (MAK-90) that I got for $180 in 1993. Today, my rifle is worth about $600-700 if I were to sell it. And that is used! AR-15s follow the same trajectory. As do SKSs.

âEU¦ I don't have any emotional attachment to this issue. âEU¦

Actually I think you are tremendously emotionally attached to this issue. The reasons:
* Why the need for name calling? You do not understand it, so you label a group of people (and you tried to call me out for stereotyping!)
* If you were not emotionally attached: why the willful lack of knowledge? I mean I have tried to engage you in discussion over the capabilities of these versus other firearms, and instead of gaining knowledge you want to dismiss it as âEU~technical babbleâEUTM.
* You have to tear me down on a human level because I disagree with you. I take this problem very seriously and have several deep human attachments to it. If you knew me as a person, and not merely some faceless poster challenging you, you would see just how foolish you are to make the claims that I am trivializing this phenomenon and/or do not take the problem seriously.

At 4/1/13 03:13 AM, EdyKel wrote: Guilty? I'm guilty of what, exactly? Not playing playing by your rules, or some shit.

AgainâEU¦discretion is the better part of valor. The norms of this forum are not my rules. Attempting to squirm the argument back to me is very poor discussion form.

Pointed out your laziness about âEU~techno babbleâEUTM.

Yes, you were, and I have pointed out more than once why your data is flawed.

UmâEU¦on this point my âEU~dataâEUTM is not flawed. The capabilities of a firearm are not subject but based firmly on science and engineering.

You have yet to show HOW these features present a threat to public safety AND that these features are presenting a clear and present danger to public safety.

They are firearms, son. Not toys. That's how people like you treat them, though, and that is dangerous if you forget what they are.

Wow! This just goes to show your level of bigotry towards gun owners! You cannot articulate a sound argument for your position so you go all ad hominem!

Now, instead of trying to trying to tell me how I think; why donâEUTMt you try to actually formulate a coherent argument for your position? On the point of assault rifles (not pistols) you have yet to show how they present a clear and present danger to public safety or are uncommon or unreasonable under Heller.

No they do not. These firearms have been on the market for decades now. They are not used in crime to any degree of either frequency or effectiveness. This is reality.

Yes, and now how many companies make them? Competition is going to bring down prices, that's how it works.

Now as in all the companies that make AR-15s today or all the companies that made AR-15s in 2004? Or how about how many companies made AR-15s in 1993? I haveve been in the market a long time. And you, Sir, do not understand the market.

First of all, not all AR-15s (or AR-15 enthusiasts) are the same. For the record, I am not a fan of the rifle, but I have many friends who are. But people buy them for different reasons. I know you do not like to be overwhelmed with facts so I will just give you three variables you do not take into account:

* Like all non-high powered rifle calibers, the .223 is relatively cheap to buy. I can buy military surplus or FMJ ammo to go plink for about $11 per box of 20. (The AK is even cheaper at about $6-7/box of 20.) Compare this to .270 which starts at about $23 per box of 20. So these variants are good ways to keep up basic marksmanship without spending a whole lot of money (makes hunting more safe). Also the .223 is accurate to a longer ranger than .22 or the AKs 7.62x39.
* Some people like building them and customizing them to their preference.
* Some people use them for competition shooting and use specialized barrels and stocks.

Because of the variety of types of AR-15s and types of AR-15 shooters there is room in the market for all 33 manufacturers since they are not all competing for the same buyerâEU¦just a niche in the market. Your argument is based upon a simplistic understanding of economics and you lack to take into the particulars of the specific market you are attempting to analyze.

It's called perspective. And I read enough, and dealt with enough stupid peopleâEU¦

Too bad you have none. The gun community is a diverse and nuanced community, and no I am not blind to that fact. However, what you fail to recognize is I am not here to argue about the merits of the gun community as a whole. What I am here arguing is the merits of the law that you appear to support. I am making an argument that the AWB suffers from some serious flaws and will not solve any of our problems based upon the actual capabilities of the firearms as well as realworld observations of their use and misuse.

AlsoâEU¦I would reconsider calling people who can at least articulate a reason for their behavior (be it deep or shallow, ignorant or informed)âEU¦when you cannot articulate a cogent argument for where you want to draw the line on firearms regulation.

LOL... You just threw a bunch of data, and theories, that don't even begin to answer the question in any way or form.

Wow you sure got me! OhâEU¦waitâEU¦

Data: Scientifically speaking data are groups of facts that have been observed and from which we may draw conclusions.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Now a theory may also be just one proposed answer, especially when a phenomena is being studied early on. But considering that social scientists have been researching this for 30-40 yearsâEU¦the theories are more on the concrete side.

NopeâEU¦thought you had me there for a momentâEU¦but then your inability to judge the possible against the actual once again tripped you up and put your willful ignorance on full display! :)

It doesn't matter how many times you try to recycle the same ol' theory, I'll continue to trash it as unrealistic nonsense. âEU¦ This is called reality.

Reality is that you lack a grasp of history and knowledge of how politics works. Do you realize that Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, made open carry illegal? He also supported the 1994 AWB? How about Richard Nixon saying heâEUTMd like to get rid of all the guns?

If Dems like Feinstein, Schumer, and Obama were really smart and deft legislators and governorsâEU¦they would be engaging people like Colburn and actually working together to strengthen background checks. Instead they parade the victimâEUTMs families out and applaud Bloomberg as he puts ads out that come across as condescending to gun owners that only further solidify resistance to their proposals.

If the Democrats would calm down and not let their radicals lead on this issueâEU¦I think far more legislation would be possible. As it is, they way they are handling itâEU¦they are only increasing the NRAâEUTMs ability to resist.

....and Republicans are helping out how? they just seem to be sitting quietly, while ready to vote against anything that Democrats are proposing. So, nothing is getting done, because the other side refuses to work to find common solutions to the problem. And that's how things truly stand right now. It's a game to do nothing.

HmmmâEU¦you would again seem to have me. But, oh wait, you are talking out of your ass again and show you do not know what is going on.

In the Senate, background checks are faltering because people like Chuck Schumer want it all their own way. They do not want to listen to Republicans who say that certain things will not fly with the gun community. Two examples:
* Private sellers keeping records of transactions for up to 20 years as dealers are required to do. The problem here is when a dealer moves or goes out of business they turn their records over to the BATFE. The concern for private citizens is they do not have accountants and secretaries to keep track of this stuff. Things get lost in moving. There are numerous ways that people who lack the means of the elites in the government can be held liable for human error.
* Doing the sale through a licensed dealer.

Perhaps if the Dems worked with the Republicans instead of insisting on their way or the highwayâEU¦better laws would be passed.

[cont.]

At 3/29/13 09:11 AM, Elfer wrote: It's not an incredible claim, he's just misinterpreted it in a way that makes it sound incredible, i.e. by implying that there are heaps of people out there who have bought guns for home protection.

Note that the figure is "90% of guns are owned by white people" not "90% of gun owners are white people". With a little educated guessing, this figure becomes a lot less incredible:

...

I think this actually a very sober calculus. And it makes sense. However, I think the 90% is still a little high. The reason is the black community has a history of arming themselves to prevent racially motivated violence. In the 1970s the Black Panther Party armed themselves to patrol their own neighborhoods. The problem was, Reagan was governor at the time and signed into law a bill that made open carry illegal.

My point is the black community does have a history with owning guns for protection. On the other hand, many hispanics come from cultures where gun ownership is unheard of and alien. So law-abiding hispanics may be a little off-put at the notion of owning guns. I would think figures saying 70-80% of legal gun owners are white would be more accurate than 90%.

I think he was overexagerating and pulling a figure out of ass (which is 90% pizza) for dramatic effect. Afterall, if it were real why didn't he mention his source?

Those things considered, it's not that surprising that 90% of all guns would be in the hands of white people. The statistic is not incredible, the interpretation is just an incredible leap.

At 3/30/13 10:58 AM, Ericho wrote:

It sounds a lot like he's trying to fight racism. Besides, how could you tell the statistics of illegally owned guns anyway?

I don't think so. I think he's actually trying to use race to push an agenda. The reality is, gun control has long been used by both Republicans and Democrats to keep minority populations down for decades.

And you can only estimate how many illegal guns are in private hands...much less which races have them in what ammounts.

At 3/30/13 04:49 PM, Light wrote: I don't think it's a false sense of security.

The sources I've been consulting on the matter just seem to disagree with the sources you're consulting. I respectfully disagree and believe that, as of this moment, and perhaps for several more years, North Korea won't have much of a chance to hit the targets they've designated, which unfortunately include my city of residence.

I've read a few things from Jane's Defense contributors that highly doubt they have that capability.

However, we are citing the threat of some of their missiles as cause for beefing up our missile defense shield. Now China does not like this idea. Now, the people at Jane's thinks it is a smoke screen to build up our defenses against China. But I'm not entirely convinced. If we were talking about Bush or either Clinton as president...this would make sense.

But not with Obama. He has shown an unwillingness to press these sort of issues (pulling the shield out of Poland due to Russian pressure). I simply think that based upon his past performance Obama is not the type to be confrontational. But I could be wrong on this account.

Also, as far back as 2002 the State Dept was issuing reports on WMD and missile tech proliferation that included the assessment that the TPD-2 could be capable of hitting as far East as the Mississippi. Then (I want to say around '04-'06) Rumsfeld spoke of NK saying that we may not know their capability until there's a mushroom cloud over Tokyo, Hawaii, or the US.

When they put a satellite into orbit, the did so by using a ICBM.

They would mostly target the 28K servicemembers (mostly Army & Air Force) in SK. If they attacked US bases outside of Korea and not the US mainland...they would target Hawaii.

Just curious, how vulnerable is Hawaii?

Jane's doesn't seem to think Hawaii is all that vulnerable. But, I don't think they know what the US government knows. Whereas I think the vulnerability of the mainlain as 60/40 to 50/50...I think the vulnerability of Hawaii is 40/60 to 70/30.

I can't imagine anyone suggesting more regulations on handguns, and I suspect that any talk over them will make the current talk over assault weapons look jovial in comparison. This is what Im talking about when Im saying youre being just as helpful as the NRA over this issue. Youre not helping, youre stoking the fires, not just on this, but your indecision over gun control and perpetuating a myth that loose gun control leads to less gun violence.

1) I agree, I do not think more regulations on handguns are politically viable. But that does not mean that this is where further regulation is needed.

2) No I am stoking the fires. I am pointing out where the data indicates the problem is.

3) As I've pointed out: I have no indecision over gun control. I do not make the argument that we should have no gun control. I make the argument that a ban on guns like the AR-15 will not have any effect on crime.

4) There is significant statistical evidence that legal gun ownership leads to a decrease in gun crime. Furthermore, there is not a strong causal link between LEGAL gun availability and gun violence. The majority of gun violence are related to other crimes (specifically gangs and drugs)...and involve guns that are obtained illegally.

Assault weapons, and high capacity mags, have no place in our society, not for defense, and not for hunting. Everyone knows that, including you. All youre indicating to me with your logic is to steer people into buying more dangerous weapons with your argument for tighter handgun laws. That doesnt seem to smart, or, as you put it, intellectual honest.

Again...you ascribing an intentional, conspiratorial motive to me. I have tried to show you that these firearms are NOT near as dangerout as you think they are.
* That the Hague Convention made the use of of expanding bullets illegal in the use of war in order to make death NOT inevitable IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.
* That the AR-15 fires a small round at a high velocity that makes expansion in hollow points and other ballistic tipped bullets unlikely IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.
* That the ROUND that the AR-15 shoots is considered so WEAK and INEFFECTIVE at killing that many states make it illegal to shoot deer with it IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.
* That these guns have been on the civilian market since at the the 1980s and even when they are most cheap: criminals choose handguns far, far more often IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.

What is intellectually dishonest and not too smart is YOU being so sure of yourself that these are the dangerous weapons you THINK they are! Time and time again YOU REFUSE TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE THAT IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND LAW BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH YOUR PRECONCEIVED IDEAS!

<rant>
SO DO NOT DARE TELL ME WHAT I DO OR DO NOT KNOW, OR ACCUSE ME OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY WHEN YOU ARE UNWILLING TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. DO NOT DARE TO ACCUSE ME OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY WHEN YOU CONSISTENTLY ASCRIBE ARGUMENTS AND BELIEFS TO WHAT I'M SAYING THAT I HAVE NOT SAID BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR IDEA OF WHAT MY ARGUMENT SHOULD BE AND THEN ARGUE AGAINST THAT!
</rant>

And when they do happen - and they will continue to happen - they remind us how dangerous firearms can be. People like to think they are safe in public areas, and this shatters their belief and confidence in it. This is what you continue to leave out in you analysis of the problem. You look at it as something that just happens on occasion, and nothing else, but just data, while everyone else acts in the human way to such horrendous events.

Wow!

No...I am aware that this shatters people's feelings of safety. Furthermore, when the guy offs himself like Cho or Lanza the public needs justice. The guy is dead, so it renews a heated debate on guns. This is ONE REASON why when Holmes surrendered to police the gun control debate was muted after Aurora. In Newtown you have children dying and the guy offing himself...so people naturally want justice so they opt to do SOMETHING.

I have never said this does not happen. Nor have I brought it up because it is irrelevent to the topic at hand which is the threat to public safety posed by assault rifles.

I also react to these on a human level. I am going into teaching. My mother was a teacher. I have had personal experience with a potential shooter when my ex-wife and I took in her brother-in-law and intervened when he wanted to go on a spree at my high school...to include killing my mom. So yeah...I react emotionally. A very signifcant part of me wishes that the answer was so easy as banning guns and no one else will have to die violently. But the data does not lead me down that avenue of false security.

But yet, I also have the training to look at this dispassionately and without emotion. Much like a doctor who is fascinated by cancer, while being horrified by having to tell patients they have six months to live.

This is a bullshit argument on your part.

You can not treat this like other sciences. The human element does not work the same way as physics, chemistry, or biology, its a lot more unstable. While you can tell with some accuracy what certain groups of people will do at any given time, there is more uncertainty over what any one individual will do.

You tell me nothing that I do not know already.

However, what YOU do not know is that there are ways to deal with the human element. That is why my credentials are important: I have been trained in those methodologies.

We can say that there will be a hundred massacres attempts this year ( because its not easily forecastable the amount), but because law enforcement, and luck, many of them well be thwarted.

This overestimates. These massacres are a very rare event that involves many rare personality traits, imbalances, and environmental stimuli to happen. And while these causes are coming together more often...they remain exceedingly rare. It is more likely that less than 10 will be stopped this year.

Since you have not answered the why question of why more firearms are leading to less violent gun crimes, we have to assume that we helping to enable them to cause grave loss of life with loose gun laws, and because of that, the costs of trying to prevent them will also increase.

This is not the question we've been discussing. This is an attempt to move the goal posts. And I have addressed this question in the first part of this post.

What is core is what sort of weapons will lead to grave loss of life. You have yet to show that an AR-15 will lead to more loss of life than someone with a handgun.

Finally, these guys have shown a proclivity towards bombs and we're starting to see chemical weapons used (Holmes). Some chemical weapons can be made for less than $50 at Lowe's. Take away guns and these massacres may actually get worse.

So, no, I dont believe in your methodology is very accurate.

Only because you lack training in it, do not understand, and are too lazy to rectify this state of ignorance.

At 3/29/13 11:26 PM, EdyKel wrote: The whole crime and social factor thing, which you summarized in a few sentences, and concluded that the best course of action was to defund gun laws and shift the resources from it to social programs to deal with it.

That's not being stereotyping. Also, I don't make the argument to defund gun laws. What I'm saying is we've got our gun laws at an appropriate level. There is some room for tweaking, especially in our background checks, but the AWB would do nothing. That is not 'defunding'...that is pointing out doing something would be wasteful.

That's just arrogance and egotism, man. Come back down to earth. All you are doing is blinding yourself to your self describe superiority, never admitting you may not be infallible.

First of all, I never made the claim of being infallible.
Secondly, it is a legitimate statement. I have the training in this analysis and in firearms. You lack both. Therefore, I can claim a higher degree of sureity in my argument than you can.

Son, I made a point about googling my sources to you, because that's how your sources came off to me. It's why I also mentioned my academic background. I also told you I have no real interest in doing any real leg work on doing proper research work for this.

First of all, my sources are not googled. I'll get to that later.
Secondly, your academic background is not in the social sciences (I believe you said ancient history) and you also said you never finished your studies. Does not put you on the same footing as a social scientist to critique social science methodology. You want to talk about egocentrism, arrogance, and coming back to earth...
Third, if you're not interested in educating yourself: don't you DARE lecture someone else about being open minded, closed eyed, unable to see the 'whole picture', and (my favorite) self-inflicted ignorance! Your refusal to 'do the legwork to research this properly' invalidates any claims that I lack data or have a flawed methodolgy without social science credentials.

Aside from all this, my biggest problem with your argument, besides the lack of data, and your lack of ability to question what you have, is your refusal to open both your eyes to see the whole picture. It doesnâEUTMt take a genius to see the crux of your argument, something you have continuous failed to address: Why, in all probability against it, does loose, to non-existent, gun laws produce lower gun violence, when probability and human nature, dictates other wise. This is what you continue to fail to answer, which mean you donâEUTMt have all the data, and you are failing to question your own findings.

1) I do not lack data. As I have pointed out:
* I am well read in the academic literature
* My sources come from legitimate scientific and governmental sources.

2) The argument is not over loose gun laws. The argument is that Assault rifles do not pose a threat to the public safety and that those advocating for a AWB have yet to articulate HOW the 19 characteristics when paired with a LCM pose an uncommon or extreme threat to public safety or where in the last 40 years they have ACTUALLY demonstrated a clear and present threat. Loose gun laws is something that you bring up as a strawman.

3) No...I have not failed to address it. Your fundamental assumption that probability and human nature dictate that more guns=more crime is flawed.
* In order for probability to play a role, then guns would have to be able to cause crime independently of any other variable...including human beings. This is either an ignorant or insane argument.
* Humans by nature are not homicidal. This is why the Army trains soldiers by shooting at human shaped targets: psychological studies have shown that in WWII over 80% of soldiers where subconsciously aiming over the enemy's head because humans are wired not to kill other humans.
* Humans also tend to avoid extraordinary risk. This is why if someone breaks into your home and you pull a gun (or tell them you have one while keeping a locked door between you and them) they flee. 9 out of 10 times, the presence of a gun in the hands of an intended victime causes a criminal to flee. Furthermore, the vast amount of defenseive gun uses does not involve the trigger being pulled. When a civilian pulls a gun there is less chance of someone getting hurt than when a cop pulls one.

4) I question my own position all the time. I do not read NRA or GOA literature. If anything, I read anti-gun journalism far more often. I read studies by people who come to pro-gun-control conclusions such as Arthur Kellerman. Also, my stance on handguns reflects this. But as you show later...you have to twist this against me to justify your own entrenched position.

The other problem IâEUTMm having with your arguments is the conflicting views you have on gun control. ...

I do know what I want, what my arguments are, and they do not conflict.

At no point have I said: 'we should get rid of gun laws'. All I have said is that a ban on assault rifles would not solve any problems and would be a waste of money. What you are doing here is building a strawman out of what you think the NRA line is and what some real or imagined 'gun nut' friend of yours has said...and then ascribed that to what I believe.

I cannot change your mind because your mind is so closed that you cannot accept new information. You have to categorize it according to what YOU think my argument and intentions are or should be. Nothing in this paragraph is an accurate reflection of my argument to this point.

This reflects poorly on your claims as a professional annalist of data, and immune to emotions and bias.

The inconsistencies are the product of additions YOU have made to my argument to make them fit your preconceived notions of what someone opposed to FURTHER gun control measures such as bans on AR-15s should argue. Since they are not an actual portrayal of my argument...there is no poor reflection.

When I look at crime stats I look at raw data from the government (Census, FBI, etc).

Then save and show them instead of these google links.

Um...those tables can be considered, for this venue, raw data.

We don't know that, that's just an assumption. I have pointed this out to you.

*sigh* Actually...if you go back to the first time I brought up Kleck...I mentioned that he was a self-described LIBERAL Democrat. To point out that he does not approach this from the Right Wing or a Conservative ideology...and came up with a conclusion that goes against what his bias would seem to be.

Nothing more. I was trying to make a point.

Also, you are attempting to tell me what I think again. I do not believe party ID OR ideology determines one's belief on every issue. They are a strong indicator of how you are most likely going to believe on any random topic. But these factors will not be true for every issue with everyone. Nor do they determine individual beliefs.

Finally, very, very, very few people even on the very pro-gun side of the argument would argue for 'no gun control'. So merely being for some gun control does not make you either extreme or moderate. It is what you base 'drawing the line' on that determines whether or not you open minded (moderate) or closed minded. You have not shown moderation.

At 3/29/13 07:18 PM, Light wrote:

At 3/29/13 03:08 PM, TheMason wrote: The NK military has a three stage rocket capable of hitting the mid-West. Also, their nuclear warheads are getting smaller faster than we have thought they were capable of. So yeah...we could have a mushroom cloud over Missouri. And that would be bad, M'kay?

I highly doubt they'll be able to strike any targets on the U.S. mainland.

It's a 50/50 shot. In the last few years we've been seeing some technology transfers between the DPRK and Iran. This could mean that they are getting Russian tech through backdoor channels.

But we've actually had concerns that the Tae Po-Dong II could reach the Mid-West since about 2002.

To say that you highly doubt their capability to do something or not do something is just giving yourself a false sense of security.

Now, what is more credible would be to say that it is highly likely they don't have that many and that makes it more likely that our missile defense system will be able to screen incoming DPRK missiles.

But they may be able to strike U.S. military bases in Guam and other pacific islands that aren't too far from North Korea, which is worrying.

They would mostly target the 28K servicemembers (mostly Army & Air Force) in SK. If they attacked US bases outside of Korea and not the US mainland...they would target Hawaii.

At 3/28/13 08:58 PM, TracyJacksonTAW wrote: Of course, when we look at the military differential between the US/UN and NK....we will know right away that any attack by NK is more or less a suicide.

At 3/28/13 09:27 PM, Th-e wrote:

He might just have to put his money where his mouth is, even if it is a suicidal move.

You have to stop thinking like Westerners.

Asians are very concerned with the concept of 'saving face'. Backed into a corner and with no chance of his regime surviving: Kim may choose to go all out and strike at SK and US forces there (USFK) with everything he's got conventionally as well as chemical and biological warfare. He'll probably also strike at Japan and attempt long-range missile launches against the US.

I am divided on who will get the nukes...either the US or Japan.

What it would be a muder-suicide ritual (much like a spree shooter in the West) played out on the international stage.

At 3/28/13 08:13 PM, Satan wrote: I couldn't give two shits about what NK decide to do, if they start a war, China won't help their ass, they will basically be like "America buy our shit, if we turn on them, we will lose a lot of cash, nope, not worth it." and NK will be nuked to oblivion, I remain unfazed by the Koreans and their empty threats, nothing will happen, and even if it does, it won't effect us, too badly.

It is hard to say what China would do. China has shown that domestic pressures matter more to them than that applied by the international community. They trade with Japan...but to keep the public rallying around the flag during economic hard-times...Beijing has been rattling the saber against Japan.

The flood of NK refugees into China following an invasion or regime collapse would be a HUGE burden on their fragile economy and cause domestic disharmony. They havea definite interest in maintaining the status quo in Pyongyang. They may decide NK refugees and collapse pose a bigger threat to Beijing than pissing off the US.

The NK military has a three stage rocket capable of hitting the mid-West. Also, their nuclear warheads are getting smaller faster than we have thought they were capable of. So yeah...we could have a mushroom cloud over Missouri. And that would be bad, M'kay?

I already pointed this out in a previous post. I wrote about them being an implication. You can't imply that these are for hunting, or for self defense, and even recreational use is stretching it a bit. When spree shooters use them, especially the more thoughtful ones, they are using them as a statement to scare the public. It's hard to be scared of a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or a handgun, but an assault weapon stands out. You might think it's a misunderstood weapon, unfairly vilified, but to the average Joe, it means just that, an assault weapon, something from the battlefield. You may not agree with that but that's how it's viewed by others. It's viewed as unnecessary and extreme.

I actually agree with you about the perception that the non-shooting public has about these firearms. However, the emotions of people who lack context or knowledge does not make these perceptions correct. To found any sort of argument in them is foolish and ignorant.

Furthermore, the person who finds it hard to be afraid of a shotgun, handgun, or hunting rifle is a fool and mentally lacking. I have shown that these firearms are actually far more deadly and capable than the assault rifle. This is not subjective. These are scientific facts based largely on physics. The lethality of the firearm is not in its looks or action. It is based upon:
A) The energy the bullet is able to transfer to the target, (F=MA2)
B) The way this force acts upon the bullet once it hits the target. (the properties of the shape and composition of the bullet)

A firearm's accuracy is a component of the ballistics of the bullet as well as the action. Automatic firearms bleed energy from the round making it less accurate and less forceful on the target.

The faster you fire, the more recoil you abosrb at once. When guns fire, they pull up. If you compound the recoil they will pull up and to one side.

Also, as I have pointed out...it is a matter of international law that weapons developed for the battlefield do not make death inevitable. Modern military firearms such as the AR-15 and AK-47 fire a round called an intermediate round; they are not high powered and they have been getting smaller and less effective at killing. Therefore, the non-shooting public's perception is erroneous. That these guns are designed for the battlefield is actually, an argument NOT to ban or further regulate them.

====

Either show that these features are a legitmate threat to public safety or shut-up. Perception is not reality, especially when you're talking about the perceptions of people who do not have knowledge about that which they are speaking.

Instead of dismissing my reasons and the scientific facts I have presenting...question them. Look into them. I am not trying to drown you with 'technical jargon'...I'm trying to show you that your perception is based upon a very shakey and nonexistent foundation.

* If these firearms go down in price, it is going to because the market has been flooded with demand in the months since Sandy Hook. Remember: I'm a member of the gun community. I go to gun stores frequently and talk to the owners because I'm curious about human behavior. They have not been able to keep assault rifles and those pistols targeted by the AWB on the shelves...and manufacturers are unable to keep up with the backlog. I go to Walmart, and all that I can buy are shotgun shells...there are people who find out when the trucks are going to arrive and buy up the ammo in about an hour. And that's with Walmart limiting how many boxes of ammo people can buy. This is not knew. It happened in 1994, and then in '08 when Obama got elected. After nothing happened prices dropped...temporarily...and then increased. This is a pattern that is observable over decades. You are focusing on your own thought experiment and not even considering that there has been a real life phenomenon that contradicts your thought experiment.

* These firearms have been available to people of the lower classes for some time. In 1993, an AK-47 cost about the same as a shotgun or a handgun. They were available to people of all classes...and yet their use in crime DID NOT spike as you predict! The reasons:
-Any rifle is near impossible to conceal. You had a high capacity magazine, even if it has a collapsable stock, you make the firearm even less concealable.
- A rifle round is traveling fast which means that even if you have a hollow point, jacketed hollow point, or soft lead core bullete...there is only about a 20% chance the round will expand or flatten inside the body. If you are shooting someone (and you are a criminal) you are most likely shooting to kill. Handguns on the other hand are firing rounds that are going significantly more slow and therefore HP, JHP and soft core bullets have a much higher possibility to expand. Also, they are more likely to bounce around inside the body whereas assault rifle rounds are going to exit the body doing less damage. Shotguns can fire up to 9 lead balls that are .30inches in diamter and can be made of soft-lead doing tremendous damage to the body. Shotgun slugs which are just a mass of lead .69 inches in diameter...will flatten upon penetration and much more likely to kill.
- Assault rifles are heavier and more difficult to wield when holding up a store. The small size of the pistol makes it far more effective than anything else...followed by the shotgun.
- Surveys of criminals jailed for using a gun in crime have shown that even when these firearms are cheap, available, and even owned by felons...they choose other firearms because assault rifles are all bark but no bite.

My conclusions are not weak. They are based upon my experiences in the market as well as realworld data that comes from nonpartisan and unbiased sources of research.

(NOTE: I rearranged your last post so I could respond in a more linear fashion.)

The idea of these gun laws is to not make these firearms a standard weapon of choice among criminals, and maniacs. Keeping them well regulated, and the prices high, will reduce the chances of these weapons being used in such crimes and massacres

Do you see now why this is wrong?

These firearms are not going to make crime or these massacres more lethal because of the simple fact that they are not capable of inflicting the damage you think they are. Compare Newtown to the worst modern school shooting: VT.

In VT, Cho targeted a community of adults. He used a 9mm and a .22 pistol. He stalked from room to room like Lanza did taking relatively well aimed shots. Now let's look at the outcomes:

VT
Dead: 32*
Wounded: 17
Shots fired: 100

Newtown
Dead: 26**
Wounded: 2
Shots fired: 154

(* I did not include Cho's suicide as one of the dead. ** I did not include Lanza's suicide, nor his mother's murder since he used a .22 rifle and not the AR-15.)

Now let's talk about the differences between these two shootings. And let's try to leave emotion out of it.

* The average adult has 5 pints of blood. The average 6 year old will have less than half that, therefore a child cannot lose as much blood as an adult. This is just one of the many ways that children are far more suceptible to trauma than an adult is. Cho targeted full-grown human beings. Lanza, according to recent reports, studied spree shootings and selected children in an attempt to kill as many people as possible.

* Every victim was shot more than once at Sandy Hook, it took 3-11 rounds from the AR-15 to produce one kill. The 9mm Cho used is capable of killing an adult with one shot.

* Lanza reloaded far more frequently than the public thinks. Part of his perperation was learning police and military tactics about when to reload. He changed mags frequently, before he was out of ammo. This allowed him to reduce the chances of the gun jamming (as had happened with Holmes in Aurora.) This study of tactics saved lives in two ways:
1) His more frequent mag changes gave students a chance to escape (note: I do not deny this).
2) His study of police/military tactics caused him to end his spree when his sling broke.

* One comment on large capacity magazines (LCMs): I draw a difference between assault rifle LCMs and LCMs for handguns. Handgun bullets are heavier and have a significantly larger chance of expanding inside the human body, they pose a far greater danger to public safety than the smaller rounds fired by assault rifles (hunting rifles shoot high-powered, larger rounds). An LCM in an assault rifle has been shown to lead to a high rate of fire which means high muzzle rise which in laymen's terms means bullets go into the ceiling.

However, handguns tend to inspire lower rates of fire and aimed shots. Thus they kill more people. That is why I support more stringent regulation on handguns.

I think the public is correct in their views on Assault weapons, and I think the gun community also sees it in the same way, but will never admit it out loud. The Gun community knows full well what Assault weapons are, and they know it's the next best thing to a fully automatic...

Absolutely not! The public is NOT correct on their views on assault rifles. They are not capable of the things you (and the public) perceives them to be capable of. The gun community is not conspiring to get full-auto...this is an incredibly silly, and ignorant idea!

Now there are some people who want full-auto guns. There are some who even have the money to:
-Pay $600 to go through the background check and application process to get a Class III firearms license to buy full-auto guns. (Since I have a clearance, I've been told I could go get one for about $50-100.)
-Pay at least $2,500 to $10,000 for a full-auto military grad firearm.
-Pay $6/20 rounds for an AK or $11/20 rounds for an AR-15. At 600 rounds per minute...that's $18-33/minute to fire these firearms.

But guess what? I'm not interested in full-auto, nor would any criminal. Here's the reasons:
-Only the first three rounds (at most) would hit the target. The recoil is so great the shooter loses control and the gun pulls up...shooting into the air).
-Because of the waste of rounds modern armies the world over have moved away from full-auto on their assault rifles. Instead, they have adopted 'burst' fire which only fires 3 rounds at a time.

Full-auto is seen as foolish by the gun community whether civilians, law enforcement, or the military.

Your focus on full-auto only highlights how uninformed and unknowledgeable you are about firearms.

At 3/28/13 11:37 PM, EdyKel wrote: To make things clear, I'm an API mod, not a forum mod. And while I may not post in the politics forum that often, I'm not new to posting on forums of this kind.

Dude...seriously? Stop trying to show that you're not guilty of what you're guilty of. I cannot speak to whatever other forums you post on. That is irrelevent. What is relevent is how we discuss things on this forum. You complaining about me going point-by-point, in this forum, is whining...not winning.

When I'm dealing with a serious subject, I can be quite an asshole, especially if I get a lot of nonsense. I don't care what some of the monkeysâEUTM think of me when IâEUTMm responding to you. I know they are not going to be on my side, so why waste time trying to make nice with them.

Again...off topic.

As to you, trying to drown my first response in a bunch of techno babel, and crowing about your credentials, doesn't make a good first impression. I know you ain't that bad, but sometimes people should realize how they come off to others, especially to a "noob". DonâEUTMt just blame

Um...I was not trying to drown your first response with 'techno babel'. I was trying to show, using objective fact to show that you are basing your opinion on a very poor and uninformed foundation. Rather than actually try and clarify or question why I posted these arguments...you dismiss them out of hand.

...and through all that you haven't told me why you need them, other than to have them.

You are the one who thinks that having them presents a threat to public safety and should be either regulated or banned.

You have yet to show HOW these features present a threat to public safety AND that these features are presenting a clear and present danger to public safety.

I also pointed out how the costs of keeping these types of firearms on the market far outstrip the cost of gun laws, not just on social programs, but on prevention on their use on the public by maniacs and criminals.

No they do not. These firearms have been on the market for decades now. They are not used in crime to any degree of either frequency or effectiveness. This is reality.

And my point has always remained, pointing out the stupidity and the bigotry that emanates from the gun community in their defense of superficial features and accessories on the market.

1) Knowing the capability of something and pointing out that it does not do something someone thinks or perceives it does is not stupid. Especially when the person who is thinking or preceiving does not have any knowledge about these things.

2) How is it bigoted? Now you're just throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks.

Because you havenâEUTMt presented all the data that explains âEUoewhy?âEU you think, in all probability, loose gun laws leads to less gun violence when most of it originates with people who are not deterred by guns.

No I have not. I'll do that now.

No policy is a silver bullet that will reduce ALL of something. Laws such as CCW or the Castle Doctrine deter certain types of crime. They do not address the factors that fuel gangs and drug crime.

So then the question becomes: What are the causes of gangs and drug crime?
There are numerous studies (academic studies conducted within established scientific norms) that point to several causal factors:
* Education
* Economic inequality
* Presence of one or more disadvantage ethnicities

These studies have also examined the correlation between guns and crime...and found that while there is a correlation there is no causal relationship.

We need to address these causal factors...addressing correlations that are spurious is nothing more than nibbling at the edges and will not solve anything. Anything is a distraction.

Finally, we have had loose gun control laws in some locales and strict ones in others. Studies show a slight negative correlation between more guns and less crime that is statistically significant. The decrease is slight, but it is not an increase. So why would you want to move to making these things more strict when they:
A) do not lead to the increased slaughter opponents claimed were going to happen,
B) is a slight improvement over what we had before,
C) would not solve the larger issue.

Also, and our background check system, while still full of holes, is still straining out much of the people with criminal records, along with renewed interests in gun trafficking on the national level.

And again...I've talked about how I am NOT opposed to revamping the background check system. I think the pro-gun-control Democrats pushing this are doing it wrong and I have suggestions on how to better do them.

I also think people who straw purchase should be charged with the same crime and responsible for the same penalties as the guy who committed the crime.

What a bunch of dog shit. And you should know that. Some of the worst massacres in this country happened last year. I donâEUTMt care if you donâEUTMt think these firearms werenâEUTMt used properly, or the infrequency these happen at. I already pointed out a bunch of data you havenâEUTMt calculated into your conclusion, and the logic fallacies in it.

Not dog shit at all.

The data you pointed out is not as extensive as you think it is. There is a difference between planning for something and actually following through with it.

There are no logical fallacies because it is hard data that reflects reality.

And youâEUTMre telling me that in the last 8 years, after the end of the AWB, where the industry began to grow, only meeting the 4 year economic hiccup that was caused by the financial crisis, and fueled mostly by the gun community sales, who have created a broader interest to them to the general public through their promotion in recent tv shows like Top Shot, Sons of Guns, and American Guns, and gun sale shows, that you can tell me with your weak conclusion, that defies reality, that their wonâEUTMt be a sudden spike in the use of these types of firearms in the upcoming years with them being mass produced on such a scale to meet consumer demand for them, which will inevitably lead to cheaper versions of them, to all class level, who will be in a better position to buy them, or get hold of them through similar means as the Newtown and Aurora shooters, because the media have publicized those means?

Yes, as someone who has been in the market since I turned 18 in 1993...your assumptions are flawed.
* In the 1990s the 7.62x39 round the original AK-47 shot became more popular among deer hunters since it was just big enough to bring down a deer (unlike the .223 fired by the AR-15 and the 5.46mm round fired by later AKs).
* Throughout the 1980s these firearms were marketed by firearms makers for preppers and people interested in militaria.
* The 1980s and 1990s had shows that promoted these firearms. Ever hear of Rambo or The A-Team?
* The AK-47 at this time was glorified as the weapon of choice by street gangs and thugs. And yet...we saw no spike in their use.
* The prices of these firearms have gone up. In 1993 I bought my SKS for less than $100, and I got my AK for less than $200. In the intervening 20 years their price has gone up higher than inflation. I bought a Romanian AK in 2003 for $545. Last time I saw one in a gun store it was $600 and that was in 2012. An SKS has gone up from less than $100 to $200 in '03 to $300 today. Had they merely kept up with inflation they should cost about $320 for the AK and $120 for the SKS. Here's a CPI inflation calculator.

[Cont]

At 3/24/13 04:44 PM, Cootie wrote: China is so tired of North Korea's shit it isn't funny. And, America is a greater ally to China now than North Korea is. They would rather have our business any day. If North Korea tried to launch a nuke the entire world would descend upon them and destroy ever square inch of that shitty little kingdom.

I'm not sure that China is upset enough with the DPRK to seriously push for the collapse of the regime.

We are not really an ally of the US; more like a trading partner. Taiwan remains a serious bone of military contention between us and them.

If the DPRK would launch a nuke at anyone, there would be a coalition but it would largely be a US operation.

At 3/24/13 10:53 PM, Th-e wrote: Also, is it really true that the consequences of ending the Kim regime would wreck our country and others economically? Given current circumstances, is it a better option to let the genocide continue? To let the regime slaughter infants born to prisoners with a stomp to the neck without remorse? To starve a majority of its population while its rulers pig out on caviar and prime meat? To beat children to death over a few pieces of corn, to pour acid over those who made the slightest criticism of the regime?

It would be a massive drain on the ROK (S. Korea) and Chinese economies. It would also be a major expense for the US government since we've been a huge part of what's going on the penninsula since after WWII we kindof have a moral obligation to rebuild the North.

Morally; we need to end the regime. These are not good people in charge. But it is going to be a very tough row to hoe. Basically there are two options:
Military
We invade either preemptively or in response to some DPRK provocation. This is likely to be very bloody. Seoul would have traditional, chemical, and incindiary artillery rain down on them and probably loose hundreds of thousands of lives in the first few days of war. Then there are their special forces, some armed with chemical and biological weapons, who would automatically attack US and ROK military targets. Most likely we're looking at about 24,000 US military that would end up dead or severely wounded within the first week of war.

Regime Collapse
At first most refugees would flood into China (fearful that conditions in the South are worse than currently in the DPRK). The country is far worse off than East Germany was at the tie of German reunification. We have to go in and rehabilitate people who are massively malnourished (the regime had to lower the minimum height for the Korean People's Army [KPA]to about 4foot 8inches), believe that the rest of the world has it worse than them, and have no concept of surviving without oppression.

Another concern is if the regime collapsed...would it be messy? Would Jong-Un lash out with everything he's got? Launching WMDs at ROK, Japan, and the US?

Of course, if we did attack the North pre-emptively, China would likely still step in to protect the regime. They are probably the reason North Korea has been getting away with this for so long.

Maybe. China no doubt are a big factor in the regime's survival. But this hasn't always been so. The USSR/Russia was their primary backer. But basically throughout the Cold War the DPRK would play the USSR and China off each other like a kid playing divorced parents off each other. Even still Russia has some limited aid they provide to the regime such as employing DPRK loggers in Siberia.

But if we did anything preemptively...we would have to make sure China and Russia were aminable.

At 3/28/13 09:54 AM, Earfetish wrote: See I've got like an intuitive skepticism and when I realise I'm being bullshitted to, it completely ruins one side of an argument for me. I might take a more 'nuanced' view than my fellow Brits on the topic of US gun ownership largely because of Michael Moore and his ilk chatting a lot of shit.

Agreed. When I hear Moore talk I want to see sources, and even then I doubt he would source something credible such as a scholarly article. Instead, I'd anticipate something from a group like Handgun Control Inc.

He's manipulated facts so often that anything he says would have to be supported by something of exceptional credibility.

That's why I'm mocking him...I did not see where he sourced where he got his 90% figure from.

Say what? You can't be serious? YouâEUTMre basing your findings on a small list of spree shooters that you found on a website, and not the data base of some large government organization that collects this type of data? And you donâEUTMt see anything wrong with that? I can also bring up another simple observation that brings doubt towards the accuracy of your data. I mean, you should have figured this out if you regularly read the news, like this one. ItâEUTMs all the thwarted attempts, which seem to be a monthly occurrence. I âEU~m sure there are quite a few that would shake up the data you have. This is also another cost in terms of man hours, and sources, to figure into your study, over gun control costs.

There are several things wrong with your criticism here:
1) Spree shootings is a very rare event. There are not hundreds or thousands per year.
2) I do not see anything wrong with my methodology because this is a rare event: there have only been about 40 in the past 30 years. There is no need to go to the government, also chances are there are no government databases that would be available for me to use. So I have to create my own database.
3) I am aware that there are attempts that are stopped before they happen. However, this is not as damaging as you would think it is. First of all, something is making these sprees more common. Thirty years ago we were not stopping them 'every month' either. Now, since Columbine we've been studying these very closely and finding out warning signs and we've gotten better. Now that something is causing them to go up (and not anything related to gun availability) our better detection techniques are also working better. Judging by patterns observed in larger crime and completed spree shooters would predict that the same things would be observed in the sprees that have been caught before hand.

I already pointed out some of the fallacies in your arguments.

Not at all.

- The data on guns availability and firearms is volumous and conclusive: gun availability is not a causal factor for gun crime.

- There is no lack in my data concerning spree shooters. You assume that the phenomenon is much larger than it actually is.

- I understand the supply and demand of guns. They are probably not going to go down because of the larger economy. Instead, they are going to go down in price because of Sandy Hook. The reason is all this talk of a renewed AWB has spurred a multi-month frenzy over buying assault rifles in general and the AR-15 specifically. So much that demand outweighs supply. Now the market will correct itself and the price will probably drop below the 2011-2012 MSRP. Not because of the economy: a) the economy has stabilizied and b) the prices of these firearms have remained stable these past five years.

- Your point about copycats is a little silly. See Holmes obtained his firearms using legal means. None of the proposals would really stop spree shooters from obtaining a firearm since they are not people who would be denied purchasing a firearm after a background check. Furthermore, spree shooters use guns that were purchased legally...even if (in the case of Columbine) they were straw purchases.
You also open yourself up to further deconstruction of your argument because:
* Copycats may choose to use handguns instead of an AR-15 because the rifle failed before firing 30 rounds out of his 100 rd mag. Of the 70 people he hit, less than half were hit by his assault rifle.
* Copycats will see that if they cannot get ahold of a firearm they can use homemade explosives and chemical agents since Holmes did.

....and your point would be? I already said this in my previous posts. I cut and paste it for you:

Even though I am loath to bring these studies up, they pretty much counter several points in your argument, as well as the delivering delicious irony to your "trust these studies" argument. While it may be hypocrisy on my part to use them, I'm much too tired to do all the ground work. Personally, even with these studies, I still believe that much of the gun control over the last several decades have been nothing more than superficial.

Um...this doesn't address the point at all. Especially when you consider that they were a few charts taken out of context (nor did you attempt to articulate any original context on your part), re-posting a few of my sources (without articulating how they contradict what I said), nor a third point I address next.

The fact that they don't support definite conclusion on the subject is contradiction enough.

No...that's not contradiction at all and you're only showing your own unfamiliarity with the methodology and how to study this issue scientifically.

First of all, the quotes I pulled out of your journalistic coverage of these researcher's studies talk about their studies...not the subject in its entirity or the body of scholarship in total.

See what they were publishing at that conference was only a correlational study. Studies done by Kleck, Lott, Koper, etc tend to use statistical methods that can establish causality. The source you linked to was weak, and in no way an indictment over the entire body of scholastic research.

There was another article I was reading a few days back, but can't find it, where they pointed to better response and treatment of the last decade or so that has lead to the saving of gun shot victims. As I have said repeatedly in some form or another, you don't have all the data at your disposal to come to absolute conclusion.

Don't worry about linking it. Most people who get shot and make it to a hospital survive. The only problem is people who get shot in the heart (15% survival rate) or head (5% survival rate), those injuries tend not to survive whether or not they get treatment.

What is your point?

As for not having all the data...actually I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the data. As I've pointed out repeatedly I am an academic. I'm well-read in the literature, I've crunched the numbers myself, hell I've even had Combat Lifesaver training when I was attached to an Army counter-WMD unit which includes responding to GSWs.

Oh wait...any expertise I may have is just arrogance and in no way could to serve to inform my opinion and arm me with facts that contradict your feelings/emotion based points.

9) Dude, I am looking at all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. This entire time I've been speaking to the following parts of the puzzle:

See above.

You're squirming here and refusing to address my argument.

10) Since 2004, it has become easier to buy a type of firearm that is very rarely used in crime or in spree shootings. In the following 9 years, use of guns like the AR-15 have not spiked. Gun violence has not become worse. There has been no serious threats that you have demonstrated to the public safety.

See above.

* My point on the overall crime rate is based upon a multi-year look at trends in gun crime as reported by the FBI and the Census Bureau.
* You do not adequately deconstruct my arguments about spree shooters, what weapons they use, or how deadly these weapons prove in these shootings.

At 3/27/13 11:39 PM, EdyKel wrote: You mean the heavily stereotyped argument you have been alluding to? I think I have done a much better job in my previous post than you did on it.

What are you talking about? Where have I been stereotyping?

And no...you have not articulated any sort of clear argument.

You can read all the studies you want with one eye, but I found a lot of things in the last few days that contradicts most of your arguments.

Umm...no.
- You have not shown anything that contradicts my arguments.
*You linked to a chart by NPR that had a break-down of statistics dealing with how many and what types of firearms are owned in this country. This was just raw data with no context nor argument attached to it.
* You linked to a graph about gun sales going up. Again...you let the data stand for itself with no argument why it should be a concern.
* You linked some of my own sources back to me...without articulating how they actually went against me.

- I have earned my credentials. I have earned the right to claim that I am an authority on this subject. So I ask you: who is showing more hubris? Me for saying I have been around the process of social science and trained in the scientific method as applied to social science? Or you for lecturing me about being more humble, and then proceeding to lecture me about methodological criticisms based on your quick google search?

- I am aware of my bias. That is why I avoid NRA and GOA opinion pieces and studies. In terms of journalism, 90% of what I read are commentators who are opposite of me. When I look at crime stats I look at raw data from the government (Census, FBI, etc).

- It's time to get over your focus on Kleck. The reason I brought-up Kleck was to show that not all of the research out there is done by people who approach it either with no pro-gun feelings at all...or are from the opposite side of the spectrum. There are social scientific norms and processes by which we strive to eliminate our bias impacting our studies and failing that, minimize the impact since we are human beings...not Vulcans.
Kleck is not the only researcher I trust or read. I also brought up a U of Penn study by Christopher Koper. I've also read studies by:
David Kopel, Jerry Roth, Pablo Fajnzylber, Jeffry Miron, Martin Killias, John Lott, and Arthur Kellermann. I have also done the statistical analysis myself. I do not source these guys that often because most of their articles are printed in peer reviewed academic and/or scientific journals that require a subscription to access.

In the end: no I am not approaching this with 'one eye'. If I'm that big of a gun nut...why am I saying that the data leads me to conclude that if there is anything to be accomplished with further gun control we need to be more strict on the sale of handguns? The crime data, death rates, and what I know about the ballistics of these guns...they are the firearms that pose any sort of threat to public health.

You misconstrued my whole argument with all this techno babble. My point was simple. There should be a line drawn on firearms.

No...I do not misconstrue your argument at all. I get it. My response is: Then where should that line be drawn...and how, if you do not understand guns, these features, and how they are used in crime how do you know you're drawing the line where it needs to be drawn?

You wring your hands about people who argue about these things so much that nothing will ever get done. My point is that where you're talking about drawing the line...is not where the line should be drawn. The 'techno babble' I'm giving you is trying to explain why this is so...with a concrete basis in facts not emotion or feelings.

You're hurting your argument since you are not articulating the reason why we should draw the line here.

So far, you're not convincing me that you taking any responsibility over firearms, much like the NRA. All you're telling me is that the best course action is to ignore the problem.

Prime example of you trying to squirm around my argument and not address it. You're drawing a false comparison between myself and the NRA to make a false statement: All you're telling me is that the best course action is to ignore the problem.

I have to call bullshit. I have not said to ignore the problem Here's where you show yourself a fool:
* I have said that the guns that need to be looked at for further regulation are handguns...not assault rifles. This is based on hard data that show handguns are used in the vast majority of crime while assault rifles are very rarely used in crime...and are less dangerous at that. (Goes against NRA doctrine.)
* I've also tried to offer ways that we could get bipartisan support on background checks (something else the NRA is against.)
* I have also talked about how the science shows that it is education and economic inequality (especially related to disadvantaged minorities) lead to gang and crime lifestyles. That gun control that nibbles at the edges of the problem takes away from these programs that will have a bigger impact and save more lives.
* The problem is also related to mental health, and privacy as related to education and health.

You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

As for responsibility...I do take responsibility for my firearms. What exactly do you expect? I've heard this line stated by many people who favor more strict gun control. It seems empty, more like a slogan than anything real. Please, articulate what you mean by it.

No, it's not. You're just playing a game. You have no practical solutions for these massacres, and all youâEUTMre doing is throwing a bunch of excuse and technical jargon in hopes of luring me away.

No...I'm showing you why a ban on rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 is not a practical solution for these massacres. I'm also showing you that some of your fundamental assumptions why your proposed solution is not all that practical. You dismiss what I'm saying as 'technical jargon' as a way of protecting your position by trying to invalidate both myself and what I'm saying as if I'm making this stuff up; when the reality is these are facts based on reality and are objective. FMJ ammo does not expand because it is convienent to my argument...it does not expand because of physics. The military does not use it because it is convienent to my argument...it is used because it is international law based on moral and ethical principals. The faster a person fires meaning less people hit is not true because it fits my argument...it is true because it is physics.

You are inflicting ignorance on yourself by being so dismissive of what I'm saying rather than educating yourself on them.

Secondly, I have offered practical solutions to prevent these massacres.
* Yes, I think teachers and university students should be able to carry concealed. But there is data showing that this has and can be done safely.
* Holmes picked the Galaxy theater because it was one of a handful in Aurora that did not allow concealed carry inside the theater.
* We need to look at our mental health system and how educators work with medical authorities over at-risk students. I have talked about how we need to re-evaluate things like the Safe-Schools Act and Zero-Tolerance Policies that give students reasons NOT to ask for help.

You are flat-out lying by saying that I have no practical solutions. Maybe some that hits you as incredulous...but even these are based on observable phenomenon. Not emotion.

At 3/28/13 03:06 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 3/28/13 02:47 AM, Ceratisa wrote: There is no source to debunk, it isn't credible to begin with.

You want me to just take your word for it?

I'm not saying he's right or wrong or even like him, by the way. I just, y'know, want an actual figure.

So do I; but I did not see a credible source. His previous work is incredibly disingenious and he's nothing but a propagandist: manipulating facts to make a point.

Now I know I have a bias; especially on this subject but I do try to base my views on credible sources.

Moore on the other hand is 10% fact, 90% bullshit.

90% of Michigan traffic fatalities happen when Krispy Kreme turns on the 'Hot Doughnut' sign when Michael Moore drives by!

90% of the bacon cheeseburgers in Michigan are in Michael's tummy.

At 3/26/13 06:43 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: The only people who need a gun are merely COMPENSATING FOR THEIR FREAKISHLY SHORT SHORTCOMINGS that's what makes them weak pathetic sissies who are just compensating.

I find it funny that someone would talk about others 'compensating', and then start talking about just how incredibly awesome he is that he does not need a gun to defend himself but his hands and feet!

I mean seriously...if my dick is so small that I'm compensating by having a gun...is your's so small that it goes inside you when you stand-up?

Iron Claw Has Spoken!

And has shown himself to be a fool.

@ EdyKel

1) I'm going to give you some friendly advice; while you're a Mod and have been on NG since 2009 you haven't seemed to posted much in the Politics Forum. Looking at the first 11 pages of your post history the only time you've posted in Politics is this debate. So you're still a little bit of a noob in this forum. I'm not being a jerk here: just trying to point out what the norms are for discussion in Politics. Answering point by point as I have is the NORM for this Forum. Complaining about me answering your every paragraph does not make me look bad; if anything it is a reflection on you.

2) The question remains on the table: "What is the public safety threat that can be demonstrated poised by these firearms?"
At this point, the retorts you have made are:
a) These accessories are not needed.
The problem is: simply being unnecessary does not mean that something can or should be banned. The burden of proof is on you to show that these features/accessories present a danger to public safety. You can find these features listed on Wikipedia. As of this moment in time you have failed to articulate how these features have a negative effect on public safety; furthermore you need to show (since they have been legal for quite some time now) that they have actually negatively impacted public safety as you predict they would.
b) Gun sales are going up.
There are two things about this:
The first is you fail to show how this has been a bad thing. This is a tall order when as gun sales are going up...the murder rate is a period of decline or at the very least flat. This is also legal gun sales...where is the proof that these guns are turning up to a high degree in crime?
Secondly, one of your main arguments is that is foolish to think that more guns = less crime. You despute established social science on the subject. You bring up a few things such as criticisms on survey methods...but they do not hold water because the methodologies conform to social scientific norms in how they deal with limitations.
c) These guns are becoming more prevelant in the use of spree shootings.
I have totally debunked this. This is not happening. I have shown where the incidence and frequency of assault rifles such as the AR-15 is actually decrease relative to the increase of these shooting sprees. Nor can these military clones be linked to more deaths caused by the spree shooter, if anything victims of spree shootings have a better chance at survival if the shooter uses an AR-15.

You wish to say that I am 'squirming' and ignoring facts...when you do not address any fact or proof that deconstructs an argument that you fail to completely articulate.

3) Stop linking to stories about the NRA to respond to my points! I do not source the NRA, nor are my arguments based on NRA talking points. I am not bringing this up to play the part of victim...I bring it up because it really hurts your credibility.

4) You make the claim that I am not offering solutions to these problems and that people who are oppossed to gun control and these recent efforts are blocking comprehensive measures to reduce gun crime. You fail on multiple points here.
a) As I stated above: I am not the NRA. I do not echo the NRA's argument...there is plenty of daylight between myself and the NRA. Mostly my opinions on:
* restricting mag capacity for handguns
* restricting handgun sales to CCP holders
* making background checks available to private sales (with a few caveats)
b) I have not heard of the NRA or other gun groups throwing-up roadblocks to legislation addressing mental health, education, and economic inequality for historically disadvantaged minorities.

I bring up comprehensive measures to address issues that are actually causally linked to crime rates. All you offer in return are "we need to ban accessories that are not needed or of utility to hunting"...the problem is those features and rifles are also not used in crime nor do they add to the danger posed by these firearms.

5) You have presented a new point that there are more important things for me to worry about than the proposed AWB. This actually defeats your own point. If there were more important things for us to be devoting our time, money, and attention to why should we spend the time, money, and effort to create, administer, and then enforce these laws? These firearms have been available for the legal sale and possession since the 1980s. If these features really do pose the threat you claim they do...where is it as evidenced by crime statistics and studies conducted (not by corporations) but academics working for research institutions and law enforcement agencies?
- Why do handguns account for 89% of murders* while rifles of all types only account for about 5%? (*not accounting for murders where the weapon type was not reported or otherwise unknown).
- In studies of people who have been incarcerated for gun-related crime, less than 1% used an assault rifle in the commission of that crime beause they felt a handgun would be far superior. Oh...many of these guys also had access to assault rifles so it was a matter of choice.

So if us 'gun nuts' are fools for ignoring more serious issues and focusing on this instead of the housing crisis, sequester, etc: what makes pursuing this legislation such a high priority?

6) I would never choose an AR-15 if I had the option of any other firearm. The thing is a piece of shit. It is unreliable; Colt has had to engineer a forward assist into the rifle so as to address feeding issues and they are continuously working on the magazines in an attempt to reduce jamming. The round is very small and lacks the power to take down a deer or (in the event of a home invasion) a person threatening me.

Nor would I ever choose a full-auto firearm. They are a good way to waste ammo and not hit a damn thing.

About the only advance I've seen come from military firearms is synthetic stocks.

In terms of ammo, since WWII bullets have gotten lighter and smaller. Whereas bullets designed for the civilian market have advanced in terms of how effective they are at flattening and expanding once you hit your target. This means more killing power. On the other hand, military bullets have stayed FMJ (full-metal jacket) since the late 1800s. Here's a break-down of foot-lbs on target of two WWII rifles compared to the AR-15/M-16 and the AK-47:

M1: 2,900 ft-lbf
Mauser: 2,980 ft-lbf
AR-15/M-16: 1,300 ft-lbf
AK-47: 1,550 ft-lbf

The WWII rifles fired a bullet that did a lot more damage to the target (despite being FMJ) at a far longer range. The M1 and Mauser were also far more reliable. I have respect for the AK, because it is actually battleproven and in its original form (created at the end of WWII in 1947) it fired a heavier round that is far more effective than the AR-15. Starting in '74 the Russians decided to chamber the AK in a 5.46mm round that is actually smaller than the AR-15's 5.56mm. The result is a less lethal firearm.

I have an AK-47, SKS, UZI clone, and two WWII bolt action rifles (a Mauser and an Enefield). I also have several shotguns, traditional deer rifle, and several pistols.

I would use:
Deer: .270 Remington 700 in an open field (I would use my AK-47 when hunting in the woods since I do not need a high-powered round at the shorter range).
Home defense: My 12gauge pump shotgun (although I would not use it as Joe Biden recently suggested because he showed a total ignorance and disregard for tactics and safety).
Combat: I would prefer to be issued a M-14 (pre-Nam but making a comeback), but would my M-16 until I could take an AK-47 from the enemy. Hell, I know a few Iraq vets who prefer not just the M-14 but would take a M1 over modern combat arms any day.

@ EdyKel

1) I have addressed your point about crime being related to social factors. You on the other hand, do not address that argument. I have addressed your argument in its entirity.

2) I do not have any intentional lack of information or facts. I read studies from authors whose bias exists on both sides of the argument. In terms of opinion pieces. at this point over 9 out of 10 are either journalistic or anti-gun. I do not shield myself from information that challenges my opinion.

3) You have not addressed my criticism that the AWB was not, nor will be effective because assault rifles are not what you think they are. You have not presented any counter to:
* Military style ammo is not as effective at killing as self-defense, hunting, or shotgun ammo (that's not bird shot).
* Assault rifles have been used in multiple spree shootings, yielding less deaths than pistols.
* A high rate of fire reduces such degraded accuracy that less people get hit.
* Assault rifles are used exceptionally rarely in crime.

4) You brought up the NRA in response to what I was saying, instead of responding directly to my argument. That is called a Strawman Fallacy. Pointing this is out is NOT a Strawman Fallacy.

5) I throw in technical jargon because don't you think it is important to understand the issue that you are forming an opinion on? I do not do it to talk down to you...but in an effort to educate.

6) I did not link to the Think Progress or the Wikipedia sources as proof of what I was saying. I went back and looked at it in context. 'norThen I thought I should look into the trends and not on anecdotal examples. So I used the time line Think Progress [3]recently published as well as the list created by Wikipedia. [4] My findings (since 1984):'
Let me clarify why I linked to them:
I created a database of spree shootings to see what patterns emerged. As a means of eliminating bias, I used lists of spree shooters compiled by others rather than compile one on my own. That way I could not be accused of intentionally leaving out a spree shooter because of my bias. I then looked at what guns were used in these shootings and how many people were killed and wounded.

7) The use of assault rifles in spree shootings are not going up. Actually, since the expiration of the assault rifle ban the number of assault rifles used in spree shootings has dropped...percipitously. Check it out:
BEFORE 1994
According to the Wikipedia list there were 6 shootings before the 1994 AWB went into effect. Of these:
3 (50%) used an assault rifle.
1 (17%) used an assault rifle exclusively.
5 (83%) used a pistol.
3 (50%) used a pistol exclusively.

1994-2004
According the the Wikipedia list and the Think Progress, there were 5 spree shootings during this time.
2 (40%) used an assault rifle.
3 (60%) used firearms covered by the 1994 AWB.
*(NOTE: The Columbine shooters used a rifle, but not an assault rifle. However, the pistols they used were covered under the AWB so I had to create another category).
4 (80%) used a pistol.
2 (40%) used a pistol exclusively.

2005-Present
According to the Think Progress list, there have been 24 shootings.
6 (25%) used an assault rifle.
20 (83%) used a pistol.
12 (50%) used a pistol exclusively.
====
Conclusions:

A) The time frame covered is 29 years. For the first 20 years, the number of spree shootings was relatively constant and similar (1984-1993 and 1994-2004). However, in the 9 years since the AWB expired shootings have increased four-fold.

B) Along with the increase in events (spree shootings); the incidence of assault rifles being used have actually decreased by roughly 20%.

C) Assault rifle usage was not concentrated or skewed towards the later part of the 2005-2013 time frame. Instead, they were spread out fairly equally across the time period: 2007 (2), 2009 (1), 2011 (1), 2012 (2).

So your assertion that these guns are increasingly used in spree shootings is not valid. In fact, their frequency of use has decreased in the nine years following the 1994 AWB.

====

8) Your PopSci source does not say what you think it is, nor does it contradict a thing I've said. Here's some quotes from the article:
"A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths, although that may not actually tell us whether one leads to the other." (Emphasis mine)

"However, the researchers didn't make any ground-breaking pronouncement about the relationship between gun laws and gun violence, warning that the study was "ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship.'"

This includes all gun deaths including homicide and suicide. The two are totally different things. Furthermore, there are many scholarly, scientific studies in the field of psychology that show that the presence or lack of presence of a firearm does not effect the rate of suicides.

In the end, remember correlation does not mean causation (as your source says). That's why I do not deny a correlation, just the science is actually pretty clear that gun laws are not a causal factor of crime. Education, economic opportunity, and belonging to a disadvantaged ethnic group are causal factors.

9) Dude, I am looking at all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. This entire time I've been speaking to the following parts of the puzzle:
* Educational differences leading to some groups more at-risk than others for a life of crime and gangs.
* Economic inequality.
* Racial inequality.
* The prison system being something that perpetuates crime rather than reducing it.
* Guns and what types are used.

There is science out there that supports this worldview; however you dismiss that science out of hand.

10) Since 2004, it has become easier to buy a type of firearm that is very rarely used in crime or in spree shootings. In the following 9 years, use of guns like the AR-15 have not spiked. Gun violence has not become worse. There has been no serious threats that you have demonstrated to the public safety.

At 3/24/13 05:56 PM, EdyKel wrote: 1 second? Really? How many people, especially those who are not that experience, can change a mag in 1 second. Isn't that something the army tries to train their soldiers to do...

He was overexaggerating. But really, the

Yet, people have no problem with paying millions to keep these on the market.

The difference is those are private citizens who by spending their money on whatever guns they want do not take away from other programs that could help people in disadvantaged communities find other ways to make a living other than gangs.

Now, the money the government spends on law enforcement does take those funds away from education and economic programs targeted at the urban poor.

While both can be an addiction of sort, one is often used to take the rights away from others - or defend, in personnel perspective. The data has always been misleading, pushed by the gun community - or, gun industry. It doesn't take much to figure out that a lot of data in many of these studies were based solely on certain years, most recent ones. And they notoriously avoid certain factors to get their conclusions.

Actually the data is nowhere near as misleading as you think. It comes from law enforcement and census data.

As for the point about based on certain years...there may be less here than it would appear.
- Some data is only available for certain years. For example, I cited Census data on murder rates. However, it only had data from '00, '02, '05, '08 & '09. This is not me cherrypicking the data...but using only what is available.
- If the data does not vary much from year to year, focusing on certain years and collecting the data may be a cost savings tactic for researchers who are on a tight budget due to budget cuts and the NSF's preference to fund hard sciences over the social sciences.

There is legitimate scholarship on this question. There are a few ways to make sure you're not getting biased or manipulated data:
1) Make sure you're not on a website such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign.
2) The study is funded from the government.
3) You're looking at a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
4) The book is published by a University Press.

It's like getting your car stuck in the mud and lightly pushing that gas pedal, that fails and now you decide to floor it. It's a terrible idea that gets you nowhere.

And yet, people fight like dogs to keep them, while ignoring other important issues that face this country, just because of superficial accessories.

Again...the point is these accessories are cosmetic and will have zero impact on saving lives and make the public more safe. In fact, regulation of these accessories will be counterproductive because they take money, manpower and resources from those other issues.

We have the biggest prison system in the world, and people like you and me are paying for it. Personally, Firearms are nothing more than a false sense of security.

Not at all. The prison system only perpetuates the cycle of poor education and economic opportunity that exacerbates the social ills that cause people to join gangs.

Secondly, get to know some cops. The false sense of security is those who rely on the police to protect them.

As my gun nut friend (the one who hates doing background checks, and thinks that their should be no defining line on a weapon that is too dangerous, even if it has nuclear capabilities) said to me that the original Assault weapon ban was annoying, but harmless. So well the next one be.

The original ban did not really ban anything. It is pretty much: much ado about nothing. It will not get these firearms off the street. And even if it did...it would not save any lives.

How does a registry of guns save lives? I can register my gun then it can get stolen or sold off illegally and bam you no longer know where it is. And say somebody had a registered firearm and decided to go on a mass shooting, if you don't know the person is going to go on a mass shooting how does this registry do anything? It doesn't.

How often does that happen?

Wait...you do realize you're making an argument against implementing the proposed AWB.

How will any of these laws be effective? How big is the impact on noncriminals who don't hurt anybody? It seems to be a problem for gun owners but not killers.

Nothing is totally effective, they just trim things back a bit, making it harder for poor desperate people, and mental unstable, on a large scale to get their hands on such firearms and accessories, who create bad press for the gun community.

1) All it is is bad press. These firearms and accessories do not present a real threat to public safety...just a perceived threat to those who do not possess any technical knowledge about these firearms.

2) These firearms are actually less of a threat than handguns and shotguns, by banning them you'll be funneling the mentally unstable to firearms that will allow them to kill more people than could with an AR-15. These firearms are handguns and shotguns.

3) These firearms are actually fairly expensive. Most AR-15s before Newtown started around $900. AK-47s start between $550-600. On the other hand the black market offers plenty of handguns for much less, along with new handguns from legitimate dealers that cost between $250-500. Shotguns start in the upper $200s.

âEU¦and your pompous attitude,

Do not confuse pomp with authority. I bring up my credentials because they are relevant to the topic at hand, showing that I do posses the technical knowledge regarding firearms to talk about what the various types are capable of. I also have a graduate degree in a related field of social science so I am well qualified to speak on methodologies and the literature related to the subject.

What do you bring to the table that informs your opinion?

And the irony here, your blind to the very thing you doing to me, generalizing, and accusing me of things I don't believe in. So, don't play that game with me.

No, IâEUTMm really not. I address what you put out directly. I only bring in the outside arguments about gun control in those places where you echo the common refrains of the gun-control community AND you do not support these echos with your thoughts or any support.

On the other hand, you bring the NRA almost immediately, along with OWSish indictments against the gun industry, in a weak attempt to deconstruct what I am saying. You do not address my points at allâEU¦instead you choose to engage in anti-NRA diatribes when I differ from the NRA in some key areas such as my stance on background checks, willingness to consider handgun restrictions, and in several places I agree with you that this issue is larger than guns and video games.

See the difference?

====

On a final note; you speak of my bias and lack of objectivity. On the otherhand, you describe yourself as a moderate. And yet...you demonstrate no characteristics of moderation. A true moderate looks at both sides and asks questions to see why those who are entrenched in one side or another are so wedded to their opinions. A moderate is also open to facts that contradict their worldview.

Thus far you have not shown any of these signs in your argument.

* You do not address, or even question, why I think that the notion that firearms 'that belong on the battlefield do not belong in the hands of civilians' is factually incorrect and based on false assumptions. No...the argument makes sense to you and therefore, despite acknowledging that you lack technical knowledge, you dismiss anything that goes against your worldview as illogical. A true moderate would question me, and open their mind to facts that challenge them rather than dismissing them as quickly as you do.

* I am not as firmly entrenched as you think as evidenced by my willingness to consider gun control that addresses the true gun epidemic in this country: handguns. I am also open to new requirements on background checks.

* You ignore entire tracts where I agree with you on the social problems underpinning gun violence. Nor do you address my conclusion that the 2013 AWB that was proposed would have minimal impact (based upon the data) and that efforts in areas such as education and economic programs would have far greater impact.

* You remain entrenched in the notion that all data that erodes your worldview is somehow corrupted by money by the gun industry. When in fact the data I source comes from three sources that are not funded by corporations. Instead, my data comes from the government and academics employed by universities writing for either the government or scientific journals.

The fact is, these types of firearms, and accessories, have been used in many recent massacres. ...

- The end of the 1994 AWB has nothing to do with these weapons becoming used more frequently in massacres. There are two reasons that this is a false assumption:
* The 1994 AWB only restricted firearms that accepted LCM and had one or more features listed in the bill. Therefore, AR-15s and AK-47s were re-designed to be compliant with the law. Other firearms such as the Mini-14 were never effected. So the 1994 AWB effectively banned nothing. These firearms were still available to people between 1994 and 2003.
* The frequency of use of military style rifles have not increased significantly (if at all) since the expiration of the 1994 AWB.

- It would be an injustice to seek civil suits against a manufacturer for the actions of a customer who uses their product illegally. The responsibility is on the criminal, not the manufacturer.

- LetâEUTMs have a heart-to-heart about the gun community taking responsibility. I do not want there to be any more massacres. But I am troubled by the solutions offered by people like Senator Fienstein and supported by people like you. You admit to lacking technical knowledge about firearms. So how do you know what is common sense, reasonable, and logical?

Now let me say the message supporting the proposed ban comes across to me and other firearm aficionados: These firearms belong on the battlefield, where their only function is the taking of human life. Because of their military origin they are capable of inflicting maximum death in minimum time. They are also heavy/high powered, and their threat to public safety outweighs the limited utility they have to civilians.

Now, a person like me hears that shudders. I get how that would make sense to someone who does not shot, has never shot, and does not know much about guns. It is an assumption that is reinforced by what one sees on TV, in movies, and in video games. However, this does not make the argument factually correct. In fact, the argument suffers from the following factual errors:
* As I have demonstrated, handguns and rifles designed for the battlefield are actually designed to minimize suffering and give the wounded the best chance to live. Thereby making the military firearm the ONLY firearm NOT designed to kill!
* A high rate of fire is only used on the battlefield when you want the enemy to keep down so you can flank them. As I have said previously, IâEUTMm a member of the military. IâEUTMve fired these weapons on burst fire. With just a three round burst IâEUTMm wildly inaccurate (and IâEUTMve shot competitively so IâEUTMm a good shot). Faster rate of fire=/=greater death and injury!
* Assault rifles do not fire high powered rounds. They fire a round that is small by hunting standards. The bullets also tend to be lighter than handgun rounds. In the end, the round fired by assault rifles are weaker than hunting rifles or self-defense handguns.
* These firearms are only rarely used in crime, by most estimates only accounting for 1% of gun crimes in total. The only type of crime, spree shooting, where they are somewhat common is a rare crime in and of itself. And even then, they are not used near as often as handguns. Nor do they cause the carnage and mass death that the argument supporting their ban implies.
* In other cultures we see gun control as being effective in making mass killers switch to other types of weapons. In those cultures, we see the killer opting for bladed or bludgeoning weapons. However, in the US there is also a trend for these killers to employ homemade explosives and even chemical weapons. So we may end up taking the guns out of their handsâEU¦only to have them switch to more lethal modes of slaughter.

So in the end, those of us who know about these firearms and how they are used see the argument that is touted as common sense, reasonable, and logical as lacking grounding in solid fact. These are not things that are subjective either. These are supported by either hard sciences (in the case of ballistics and the power of the round) or social science (in the case of the infrequency of which they are used in crime).

So we see an argument that is irrational because it appears to be based on emotion and articulated by people who are ignorant of what these firearms do and what they are capable of. What people like me want to see is legislation that will work and be effectiveâEU¦not just fill an emotional need to do something.

"At this point, you need to realize that you are guilty of the Ãf¢EU~strawman fallacyÃf¢EUTM. I am not a member of the NRA. My opinion on this matter is informed by my military training, and experience with firearms on the civilian side, and my academic background. So pleaseÃf¢EUÃ'¦argue against what I am sayingÃf¢EUÃ'¦not the NRA."

You're not helping yourself by playing the victim here, like most of the gun advocates I come across love to do.

IâEUTMm not playing the victim here. IâEUTMm pointing out that you are choosing to attack the NRA rather than address the arguments I am making.

âEU¦ your gut reaction to be on the defensive, your sensitivity to certain wordings, your lack of objectivity over the issue,

IâEUTMm not sensitive to certain wordings. When I bring up the lines used about these firearms in relation to the battlefield or the military, IâEUTMm pointing out that they do necessarily validate the point you are trying to make. IâEUTMm pointing out that the facts, which are both verifiable and subjective, are actually counterintuitive to the person who lacks a technical understanding of firearms.

Secondly, I have demonstrated that while I do have a strong biasâEU¦I approach the question objectively.
* I am against bans on guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 because they are not used in crime, nor are they capable of inflicting the mass killing and damage that is commonly ascribed to them. This is verified by government data on the subject.

* The ability of military rifles to commit mass murder and chaos is grossly exaggerated. While it appears reasonable on its faceâEU¦it is factually incorrect.

* The vast majority of death and crime are caused by handguns, therefore I am open to proposals that would further restrict including requiring a CCP to buy one and a limit on LCMs for handguns.

* Once you do the statistical analysis on the correlation on guns and gun crime; the relationship disappears. Which means any push to curb gun violence must be comprehensive and include:
- Increasing economic opportunity for disadvantaged minorities.
- Increasing funding for education in economically disadvantaged communities.
- Programs targeted at taking the glamour out of gang life.
- Making handguns harder to get by either increasing the age to 25 or requiring a CCP to buy one.
- Limiting mag capacity of handguns to 7 rounds.
- Reforming background checks: A) Providing it to individuals selling their guns to people they do not know, B) expanding it so that all states use one system, C) make it where the type or serial number of the firearm being purchased is reported on a voluntary basis.
- Reform some of the privacy laws that prevent educators and mental health professionals from communicating in extreme cases, such as Cho at VT, so that intervention could occur before a tragedy.

At this point, no politician is putting together such a comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence. They are just nibbling at the margins of the margins.

I'm well aware of that, but the gun community often defends those features that straddle the line.

- Yes, the utility of LCMs is limited. However, does limited utility mean that it should be restricted? Not necessarily, you have to prove that this capacity increases the weaponâEUTMs threat to public safety. At this point, that has not been proven. AR-15s and AK-47 and other military rifles, even with their LCMs, have not demonstrated a threat to public health. However, LCMs in handguns have some effect on public health. HereâEUTMs why:
* Rifles are difficult to conceal, putting a LCM whether a 30rd box mag or 100rd drum only makes this more difficult.
* Rifles are too heavy and unwieldy for the vast majority of criminal applications.
* The most common, and inexpensive ammo for military style rifles is incredibly ineffective at killing, while self-defense rounds for pistols and shotguns are devastating and roughly the same price.
* LCMs have reliability issues. This is why 100rd magazines are not issued to infantrymen. They tend to jam the gun, which is what happened in Aurora, Co.
* The average shoot-out only involves three shots fired from each side.
- In what way does having a gun that is military in appearance make it a threat to public safety? Furthermore, if this did make it more deadly or more effectivelyâEU¦why are they not used more in crime?

You know, the other thing your failing to mention in your argument over what defines military weapons from domestic ones, is that your using up-to-date definitions for them, when they have continuous evolved over the last couple of hundred years. In today's world, military weapons will always be more advance than the firearms sold in the domestic market. Domestic firearms have become more advance than preceding military firearms in their reliability, accuracy, range, and speed, and overall design.

I fail to mention this because that is not reality. The rise of the assault rifle on the battlefield is a move away from things such as killing power and accuracy. First of all, an assault rifle fires what is known as an intermediate round. This means that post WWII and Korea we moved away from high-powered rifle rounds towards something that was much smaller but still larger than a handgun round. This means that now we have bullets that are moving very fast, which means that they have practically no chance to flatten, expand, or fragment inside the body. Thus, these firearms are less likely to cause death. Secondly, automatic firearms loose accuracy compared to bolt, lever, and pump action firearms. Since the bolt moves, energy is transferred from the projectile (bullet) to operating the bolt. This means the bullet will drop more. Also, the movement of the bolt effects the trajectory of the bullet.

Finally, civilian firearms are quite often more accurate, reliable, with an overall better design than military rifles. That the opposite is true is an indication that you are largely ignorant of that which you speak of (please note I am simply saying you lack knowledgeâEU¦I am not calling you stupid). This is why sniper rifles are civilian hunting rifles (Barrett .50 calibers are very uncommon on the battlefield). As for range and speedâEU¦these are functions of the round and not the firearm.

I'm sure you know what the National Firearm Act is, and when and why it came about. âEU¦. Because I lack the technical knowledge.

UmmâEU¦no businesses are not trying to get around it. And yesâEU¦I know what it is, thatâEUTMs what I was referring to when I talked about the Tommy Gun.

âEU¦ I'm a moderate. âEU¦

IâEUTMm not being heavy handed or showing indignation. You lack the technical knowledge to really speak knowledgably on this subject. However, I have the technical, legal, and scientific knowledge to speak. So I am trying to educate you on this. You make the assertion that these weapons have no place in civilian hands. But what do you base that assertion on? How do you know that they are not suitable for hunting or self-defense?

You want to say that IâEUTMm being heavy handed, sensitive, or indignant. But when I say something I back it up with something concrete and verifiable.

You however, in saying: âEUoeâEU¦what are being offered on our market have no place in our society, not for hunting, or for self defense, but for battlefields.âEU are just repeating a mantra and offering no proof that this is valid statement other than assuming that the logic is self-evident. You do not address the following facts that argue against this prima fascia assumption:
* Ammo designed for the battlefield is, by international, of a type so that it does not make death inevitable. On the other hand, ammo designed for civilian use is most commonly of a type that makes death more likely and injuries more severe.
* Less people are killed when a spree shooter selects one of these weapons as their prime tool of slaughterâEU¦they are making their spree less effective.
* LCMs are notoriously unreliable. The AR-15 has been in service since the early 1960s, and they are still tinkering with the mag design to reduce jamming on the battlefield.
* These weapons are rarely used in crime, and even the one type of crime where they are somewhat common they neither are the most common choice nor are they responsible for the majority of deaths and serious injury.

At this point, all you are demonstrating is your own entrenched bias and self-inflicted ignorance rather than shining a light on what you perceive to be crippling bias and ignorance on my part.

So the notion that these firearms are designed for the battlefield is not a valid argument for these firearms being an uncommon or unusual threat to public safety.

Tell that to the average person. They won't know the difference if they find themselves in a situation where they are under heavy fire from an individual, who's able to continuously shoot without having to reload very often.

You give an appeal to emotion (another type of logical fallacy). Your answer does not address the following facts:
* The AR-15âEUTMs muzzle velocity is too fast for even expanding type ammo to be effective against human targets. The AK-47 hunting ammo that delivers hunting rifle lethality is too expensive for a spree-type shooting. Furthermore, the vast majority of spree shooters lack ballistic knowledge and make the false assumption that ammo designed for the military is capable of more harm than hunting or self-defense ammo.
* The faster a gun can shoot the less accurate it becomes. In fact as you fire full-auto or bump fireâEU¦the amount of recoil you generate creates dramatic muzzle rise. So the shooter ends up firing into the ceiling.
* LCMs have a higher than normal chance of jamming meaning that you have more chance of a guy armed with an AR-15 finding his rifle unusable during the attack giving the victims more time to flee or take him down.

So rather than repeat a false assumptionâEU¦why donâEUTMt you learn about what limitations and actually capabilities of these firearms?

(cont)