Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/31/13 10:26 PM, Feoric wrote: Ah, gotcha. The figures I've been able to find showed me that the NSF only accounts for about 20% of all public research funding. Other agencies are run even more independently and farther removed from politicians.

Gotcha? NOT AT ALL! Dude, I was part of the ivory tower in the social sciences (political science). I KNOW how our research was funded...as well as other social science disciplines. The major fource of funding is grants through the NSF! My assistantships (ie: income) and scholarships came through these grants, and since it allowed me to eat and live in an apartment...I was pretty damned interested in where the money came from!

You are looking at this part of the question through the macro lense. Social science funding is a small part of the NSF (many would argue a neglected part). They give much more money to the hard science fields (chemistry, physics, etc). Which is crazy because, as you point out, they get money from other sources. However, for the social sciences...this is THE major source of funding.

It's not odd at all, because the CDC has been consistently collecting data on gun violence for years. The only thing odd here is not letting the agency with the most amount of data on the subject to not publish any research with the information they already have. Let me state clearly here that I have no qualm with the NSF funding research to other institutions to conduct research. Information is awesome, and information on this subject is needed. ...

Dude...wrong.

The CDC is not the agency with the most amount of data. You have the FBI. You have datasets, very complete and nuanced datasets, in the hands of researchers in fields that have made advances on these questions. Researchers whose primary area of expertise is tackling these sort of questions.

We have knowledge and information that is far past what the CDC can provide on this issue. Funding the CDC is essentially starting back at square one with your JV team when your getting ready to play the state championship.

I do, however, think there is something else at play here. I think there's a fear that an empirical study from the CDC could have a strong impact among citizens and lawmakers, which would be used as a political tool to put forward new gun control legislation. I think that was the motive when the NRA prevented the CDC from conducting gun research: mitigating any risk associated with putting any sort of power into an organization that can potentially affect public attitude and legislation. This was just a blatant act of a self interest group restricting the scientific process. Scientifically conducted research should not be held hostage for not taking into consideration the political climate and the sensibilities held by a fraction of the population regarding a controversial issue. This, I believe, is what Obama was talking about in that quote you posted.

First of all...I agree with you that the NRA is approaching CDC funding from a political angle in terms of legislation.

I am not making that argument...nor am I affiliated with the NRA, nor do I agree that limiting scientific inquiry to achieve political ends is a good thing.

I am however speaking as a social scientist. We have data sets. We have extensive research, and the data is leading us in directions that should inform our public policy. I am familiar with the approach the epidemiologists at the CDC want to take with this question. And guess what? Their approach isn't deserving of diverting money from other research or policy options for the following reasons:

* CONTRIBUTION: When conducting research it is important to ask oneself what contribution this will make to the existing body of knowledge. The answer: none to very little. There is already an extensive academic/scientific body of literature out there. However, when I read articles presented by public health researchers...they seem oblivious to this fact. Ergo...we will be spending money to re-answer questions that have already been researched.

* NOVELTY: Is their approach different in some way? Yes it is, I will give them that. However, they seek to treat gun violence as a disease. But again...it is re-phrasing existing knowledge in new terms. Guns are not viruses or microorganisms that are capable of contagion or replicating on their own. However, the root causes of education and poverty can be prevented from spreading...through wise public policy.

Chasing imaginary rabbits in ignorant, vain attempts at 'engineering solutions' will only divert time and resources from actually saving lives.

How many people will have to die before we stop wasting resources on things that won't save a single life?

At 1/31/13 08:27 PM, TheMason wrote: a) I am talking about a case where someone has entered my house with my invitation/permission. ...

(CORRECTION: that should read '...entered my house withOUT invitation/permission.')

Why can't NG have an edit button! lol

That's an assumption on your end, but it in no way speaks for all of us for gun control. You're arguments for the neccessity of an assault rifle revolved around killing a gopher and firing 30 rounds, blindly, through the walls of your house and hoping for the best. Not great answers. It's not the gun we're worried about, it's the irrational behavior of the people who might own one. Like you, who just admited to wanting to lock himself in his bedroom and then fire 30 rounds from an AK-47 through his door just hoping that the guy on the other side is bad, and he's the only one that gets hurt. It's irresponsible and dangerous. It's unneccessary. Kill gophers with a standard bolt-action rifle and protect your home with a hand gun like the rest of the responsible gun owners. Don't, please don't, fire 30 rounds blindly through the walls of your house... I might be on the other side, wether I know it or not.

* First of all, I was talking about coyotes that threaten a rancher's livestock and hunt in packs. Bolt action rifles while more effective than muskets, are not as effective as a Mini-14 or AR-15. There is a HUGE difference between a gopher and a pack of coyotes.

* That you deem what I described as irresponsible and dangerous only shows your ignorance on this topic rather than being an indictment on my responsibility. Here's what you are missing:

1) I was not talking about shooting through 'walls' but taking cover inside my bedroom and shooting through a door during a home invasion. If it is you on the other side...what are you doing in my home in the first place? I don't know you...and in this example you would be breaking and entering. Are you breaking the law to give me flowers? Furthermore, an intermediate round being fired through the walls of a home would not have the energy to pose a threat to you in the case that you happened to be walking your dog down the sidewalk during the home invasion.

2) By the time I would pull the trigger, I would have several key indicators that the guy on the other was a bad guy. These are:
a) I am talking about a case where someone has entered my house with my invitation/permission. That person, by being in my home, is breaking the law. (Assuming that they are not police serving a warrant...in which case they would announce themselves.)
b) I have fled to my bedroom because it is a secure location where I can maintain tactical control of the situation.
c) I have also fled to my bedroom and locked the door becase as I said: I do NOT want to confront the intruder! I am not looking for a fight, nor do I deem my TV or any other material possession worthy of taking a human life.

Now...I did not mention these previously but here are the other parts of a safe, reasonable, and responsible home defense strategy...which I might add I have used in two realworld home invasions before I moved back to the country:

d) My wife calls 911 and tells them there is an intruder. In the case of robbery/burglary...I'll let the police handle catching the guy and the justice system prosecuting the guy.
e) When the person is in ear-shot I yell: "I have a gun!" At the same time I chamber a round/shell. At this point in the situation I have warned the person and provided an auditory indication that I really am armed.
f) 98-99% of the time the guy will flee. The remaining 1-2% of cases...the dude is not there to give me a hug and roses. The dude is there to do some kind of physical harm.

So this leads up to the decision time. I know that if he only wants material goods...he'll flee or just take what he wants and leave me safe. BUT if he continues trying to gain access to my bedroom...he poses a threat. It is reasonable and highly, highly probable to assume that I should be fearing for my life at this point.

At this point I should shoot through the door before he has a chance to turn any weapon he has on me. See...I know where he is...but he does not know where I am. Furthermore, in this case having the large capacity magazine (loaded with hunting rounds...instead of military rounds) gives me the ability to fire five or six shots and still have a reserve in case the dude has friends, body armor (which can be bought for as low as $500), or is hopped up on something (like the Somali fighters in Mogadishu) that enables him to continue fighting even after he is shot.

So no...the situation I described is not, as you erroneously assumed, irresponsible or unreasonable...but safe, responsible and reasonable.

I mean the alternative is for me to act like a cowboy or Rambo and go confront a guy stealing my TV...a reckless tactic that is far, far more likely to result in someone getting hurt!

At 1/31/13 01:08 PM, CacheHelper wrote: So because Handguns are super dangerous -- larger, more powerful, guns should remain legal?

An assault rifle fires a round that travels at a higher velocity (often referred to as power) than a handgun. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is more powerful in terms of knock-down power. The AR-15 round is smaller than the vast majority of handgun ammo. It is actually pretty much a longer and slightly (0.003 of an inch) bigger diameter than a .22. Also the speed/velocity at which it travels means that the bullet fired from an assault rifle will do LESS harm and kill LESS people than a bullet fired from a handgun

My argument is people (who I consider reasonable and thoughtful) like you who do not know much about make the following false assumption: That assault rifles are more powerful and lethal guns than handguns and/or even hunting rifles and shotguns. When the reality is assault rifles are nowhere near as powerful or as capable of harm as you assume they are.

Handguns are far, far more deadlier than assault rifles. This is not an opinion, but scientific fact based upon physics as well as the molecular properties of the bullets themselves.

It all points to further gun control will not save lives.

I would back up these arguments with evidence that in countries with strict gun control laws (like Japan) there is an amazing low number of gun-related violence per year. I think Japan had two gun-related deaths all year... compared to Americas 11,000+. Cleary, gun control can, and does, effect that numbers... it just takes time.

I understand your argument. And I see how you come to those conclusions. However, you build your argument on a foundation of sand. See you have to be careful about international comparisons in the social sciences. There are many differences between the US and Japan that are proven, scientifically, to have much stronger correlations effecting our crime levels and nature of crime. These would be:

* Japan is an ethnically and linguisticly homogenous country. The US on the other hand is a country that is very ethnically and linguisticly heterogenous. Furthermore, these differences are made more stark and open to more conflict due to historically and sociologically unique events that make up our national character.

* Japan is an island nation whereas the US shares a very long and porous border with a country through which drugs, people and who knows what else travel through very sophisticated supply routes.

* Japan is also a much smaller, more urban country which helps in policing.

* Japan is a culture based upon individual piety to family and community, while the US is a country of individuals.

* The US has a far larger and far more stratified economy than Japan.

* Japan has a higher level of educational attainment and achievement than the US.

These are all factors, which once analyzed with inferential statistics, correlate very strongly with effecting gun crime. On the other hand, when you do statistically analysis on the gun availability variable...any causal relationship (even when studying the phenomenon internationally) disappears.

* There is more of a legitimate case for a handgun ban than an assault rifle ban.

Agreed, but that's not the issue... bear with me a second on this one:
I am for gun control, but I am against a ban on hand guns. Why? The same reason you are; the 2nd amendment. Although I understand that handguns are responsible for more deaths a year then assault riffles, I also understand that it's our constitutional right to protect ourselves from each other and (unrealistically by todays standards) the government itself. I do not think we should get rid of this amendment, but I do feel that the amendment needs to be controlled. Having the ability to own a handgun does not automatically garuntee you the right to own every weapon ever made.

* These weapons would be far more effective against the government than you think for the reasons I have discussed ad nauseum on this BBS.

* The reason to have an assault rifle is for military/militia purposes...for national defense. It is the common small arm of militaries around the world. Ergo...it has a lawful purpose under the second amendment...which cannot be filled by another gun. Handguns on the other hand, do not serve a military/militia purpose. It's lawful purpose, self-defense, can be fulfilled by shotguns and assault rifles.

... Because I feel that assault rifles are more suited for spraying a large amount of (large) bullets over a good sized area in a short amount of time... ...

* The bullets fired from these weapons are NOT larger than the ones fired by handguns. You have this reversed. The AR fires a bullet that is .223" in diameter compared to a Colt 1911 which fires one .45" in diameter. The AR's bullet weighs (at most) 69 grains. The smallest .45 weighs about 225 grains. This is not opinion...this is math.

* We want psychos being able to spray and pray: 1) it is highly inaccurate and ineffective which means less people get hit, much less die. 2) They run out of bullets quicker, while hitting less people. 3) Forces the shooter, economically and through ignorant assumptions, to buy military ammo which is the least lethal ammo out there. 4) High capacity magazines increase the likelihood of the weapon failing. These guns actually work against the shooter.

I'll deal with the rest below.

... I feel that assault rifles are too dangerous and should thus, be banned.

The fact is that assault rifles are nowhere near as dangerous as you assume them to be. If it were the case, given that most criminal incarcerated for gun crime own these weapons...why are they in prison for using a handgun instead? Answer: prison interviews reveal that criminals know they are not effective for robbery or murder.

CONT.

At 1/30/13 03:31 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm not buying this whole "the CDC is a biased liberal anti-gun organization which throws out science and facts in order to advance their agenda" nonsense. For starters, let's make sure we're on the same page w/r/t what the CDC does. The CDC is not just limited to just studying infectious diseases as most people think. Since the primary goal of the CDC is basically to monitor health, the CDC researches many things since it's such a broad issue. For example, they study occupational safety and health, accidents, domestic violence and obesity, even though you wouldn't call domestic violence an infectious disease. As a result of which, they have a broad array of experts in many different fields. It's true that they have expertise in epidemiology and biostatistics, but that is exactly what I would want to look for if I wanted an organization who could collect and monitor population health information. The NSF does not specialize in this, they're more focused on engineering, mathematics, economics, computer science, etc. It would be an odd choice, and I have my doubts that they would publish drastically different findings than the CDC if they both did a study for comparison. Actually, why not do that?\

* The NSF IS the correct way to fund this and it would not be an odd choice. It is the normal choice. This is not a public health question...but rather a social science issue (sociology, psychology, criminology, economics and political science). These are the researchers who specialize in the methodology of just these types of questions.

Furthermore, the NSF is not the people who actually do the research...instead they are the agency that administers research grants to universities as well as other research institutions. While you state that they are more focused on math, engineering, etc...and that is true...and it is also true that in comparison the social sciences are neglected by the NSF. But the NSF is THE primary source of funding for the social sciences.

So no...the NSF is not an odd choice. It is the natural choice...which is why directing the CDC to study this issue is the odd choice.

* I do understand what the CDC does. And while looking at everything through the public health prism is a novel approach...one has to ask if it is the best way. For example, many proponents of the CDC/public health approach point to the engineering advancements made with cars and highways can be applied to guns. So how much are we going to waste on researching this idea? Guns are simple machines with safety features already engineered into them. There is little to no room for improvement. In the social sciences this notion would be discarded with minimal expenditure of funds (we're used to having to deal with strict budgets)...but there's more money in medical research so they will be more apt to waste it on silliness.

... I think this completely goes against your claims that they're a biased organization which only intends to add fuel to the slippery slope fire. I mean really, in a thread about the NRA, isn't it really obvious to know for sure which organization here has an actual overt agenda?

Let me clarify something...I'm not saying that the CDC is going to intentionally produce junk science. Instead it is going to be a by-product of putting it in their hands. The reasons:

* There is a wide academic body of literature that is commonly overlooked by epidemiologists. In Obama's words: "We donâEUTMt benefit from ignorance. We donâEUTMt benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence." This is either a lie or it is indicative of Obama's ignorance of this subject.

* We'll spend millions of dollars on studies that reproduce work that has already been done. Or they research dead ends such as "engineering controls" a la automobiles (and yet when I make comparisons to cars...its absurd). This is wasted money that could fund research by people already familiar with what has been done...or on programs that will reduce gun violence.

* On issues of social science...these guys as I've pointed out, are the "B-Team". Fundamentally they specialize in looking into very different sorts of questions than social science inquiry. And the social sciences are almost exclusively funded by the NSF.

====

So in conclusion...I'm not really saying the junk science is going to be intentional. Instead, we're going to duplicate work/effort on researchers working on questions that have already been researched and answered (I've seen some public health researchers already talking about how data does not exist on CCW...which it does...in droves). We're also going to be spending money on research that doesn't pass the giggle test. Furthermore, by giving it to people who do not specialize in these modes of inquiry...when the existing body of literature is only ignorant because it does not support your policies...are more likely to make mistakes that go in your favor than the people who actually specialize in answering these questions.

:)

At 1/29/13 08:34 PM, Feoric wrote: ... Obama is not taking your guns, he's not taking the ability away to defend yourself, yadda yadda, ...

Here's a concern though; while slippery slope arguments are fallacious more often than they are valid...there can be validity to them. In the case of guns, those of us who know guns and look at the stats worry. To me there are two options:

OPTION A: Obama has, after 6 years in Washington, learned how to be a pragmatic governor. Therefore, he sees a way to appease a segment of his party's base and public opinion by reinstating the AWB. It is doing something to look effective...even if the policy will not produce any real result. This will allow him to focus on other policy initiatives, and maybe increase his political capital.

OPTION B: This is a first step. In a time of decreasing violence, in a few years the gun-control lobby can point to contrived data as an argument to go after handguns. Afterall, there are more reasons to have more restrictions on handguns than assault rifles like the AR-15. So there is a logical and causal connection between further policies (which makes the slippery slpe a valid logical argument).

Another worrisome sign to me is his executive order for the CDC to study the issue. Now, to most people this may seem perfectly reasonable but something has bothered me about it until last night.

This is not the correct way to fund this research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the government agency that disseminates money to researchers to study issues to reach a scientific understanding of something. The NSF would funnel this money to economists, criminologists, and other social scientists who are trained in statistics and social science methodology.

The CDC on the other hand will funnel money to MDs and epidemiologists (who are jacks of all trades) who are accustomed to looking at these things through the lense viruses and microorganisms that are capable of reproduction and transmitted from person to person. A gun is an inanimate object that does not proliferate on its own. The epidemiological studies I have seen thus far dealing with this subject all suffer from fundamental assumptions that are erroneous.

In short; this is a way for a person with a political agenda to directly and significantly create junk-science to support said agenda.

At 1/29/13 11:05 AM, Feoric wrote:

Yep.

So you do not support the AWB?

Do you feel that the AWB has any possibility of passing Congress? Do you feel Obama actually wants it to pass? Do you feel it's not simply a bargaining chip for negotiations?

I give it a 50/50 shot. Pro-gun control groups are more vocal and better funded now than in 1994. There also seems to be a slight public opinion advantage in their favor. Plus emotion is on their side which is a better sale than mathematical models and fact which are more on the pro-gun side.

At 1/28/13 06:07 PM, Fim wrote: The assault weapons ban may be illy defined I'll give you that, but the premise of making it harder to access more powerful weapons is good, ... There are a bunch of countries where they rate guns on a scale of restriction depending on how destructive they are.

If this is their goal...then they have things backwards. As I have repeatedly shown: assault rifles are not that powerful. This is not a political subjective based upon nationality, ideology, or being part of a particular subculture. This is physics. As we have seen time and time again...the most destructive firearms out there are handguns followed by shotguns at the close ranges where most crime takes place.

Or we could just let those with valid CPLs be allowed to conceal carry, or have it be a part of the local police forces duties. Many place already do that second part, and there has been no issue with it.

They do eventually, but like I said the armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. So I don't think rolling out an extensive 1/8th of the entire police force of the US and posting them in schools is a smart idea, the NRA need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

On this I actually agree with you. In many cases armed guards tend to get taken out first in a surprise attack. This gives the shooter another firearm as well as more ammo. Furthermore, when police do arrive...it is the culmination of their suicide ritual therefore the bullets really start flying. However, in a few cases when a CCW holder is present and the sacrificial lambs can fight back...the massacre ends sooner with the shooter putting a bullet in their own brain instead of others.

In my teacher's union we've been having some spirited discussion about arming teachers. Suprising...more and more teachers are wanting the right to have CCW in their classrooms.

At 1/28/13 07:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Gun control doesn't work is an OPINION end of thread.

At 1/28/13 07:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Gun control doesn't work is an OPINION end of thread.

Nope...it is well researched by academics with articles published in major journals.

Link 1

Link 2
* "firearms homicide correlates closer with car ownership than it does with firearms ownership."

* "The Home and Scottish Office's own figures on armed crime and firearms ownership by constabulary area show a negative correlation. In Britain, in areas where legal firearms ownership is higher, armed crime is lower: and this is the case both for total offences and for every individual category of armed crime. Moreover, factoring out the differences between urban and rural areas yields the same result: it is not just the total, but the proportion of crimes committed with firearms that is lower where licensed firearms ownership is higher."

* "To indicate how trivial this correlation is, the firearms ownership data is replotted (right), together with car ownership data from the same sixteen countries. Car ownership yields a greater correlation with firearms homicide than does firearms ownership."

Link 3

* Finds a correlation between firearms and homicide. However, the findings on the causal relationship are mixed (some academics do find a causal relationship, however these are often weak at just barely above the 5% level of statistical significance).

* Suggests researching:
Income inequality
Low funding for social programs
Divorce
Households where all parents work
Ethno-Linguistic Heterogenity (racial diversity)
Social acceptance of violence

pg 220

====

I could go on, but I've spent my adult life studying this topic. From a survey of the literature it comes down to this:

In order to be statistically significant two variables have to be at a significance of of 5%. This is called the p-value. In order to be publishable in a peer-reviewed, academic journal this value needs to be greater than 0.05. A really good p-value is 0.10. A very strong would be around 0.15. And get ready to get your Nobel at 0.20. :)

In the case of gun control it's effectiveness tends to hover around this value.

Same thing with the availability of guns and gun crime. In fact, studies of this question tend to be much lower than 0.05 and even quite often show a negative correlation (or that more guns equal less crime).
âEUf
As for the comparison of the US to other developed countries...I have done this math myself. The standard deviation is how far from the mean a subject is. Or in layman's terms: what are normal limits (what can be expected) and who are within normal limits (within expectation). Anything that falls between 1 and -1 standard deviations is considered normal limits. The US' standard deviation is 0.86. Canada's is -0.82. So while the US has more gun crime than the mean and Canada less gun crime...we are both within what one would expect for a developed nation. Ergo...our crime rate is not near as significant as people think.

And here is an interesting graph supported by the research of Gary Kleck and the FBI. Seems that according to the trend lines, gun supply does NOT correlate with either homicide or suicide. And while the adage is true: correlation does not mean causation...one cannot have causation WITHOUT correlation. :)

At 1/28/13 04:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

We are not debating about race if you read it was about the direct correlation between poverty and crime.

No, what we are originally talking about is comparisons between the US and other countries in the developed world. My point is that there are many reasons that seperate the US from other countries...even developed countries.

"There's a direct correlation between poverty and street crime." I guess I should have spelled it out that the quoted text highlights the link between the socioeconomic paradigm and peoples actions particularly people at a strategic economic disadvantage.

No...I got you and I agree with you. Restating the premise serves no purpose, except for giving me another chance to point out my point (thank you).

In the US we have two racial groups that are at a strategic economic disadvantage because of historical and sociological factors unique to the US. Blacks in the US are unique in that from 1640 to 1864 many were slaves. From 1865-1970s Southern blacks lived under the fear of lynching and were divested of their civil rights in the South (including their second amendment rights) under the 'Black Codes'. Also, poverty in urban black populations has become institutionalized. Their schools have been neglected.

With the Latino population, you have a significant portion of this population that is here illegally and therefore experience a certain level of desperation. Limited in their options, crime becomes an attractive (and lucrative) alternative to legit economic activity.

I would interject and state that you must consider the link between socioeconomic status and race far before you consider the relationship between race and crime. I would just cut the race thing out completely and just consider the direct link between socioeconomic status and crime as you can see how it could make you come of as a racist if you are just jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. You must consider the fact that some people are at an economic disadvantage which intern makes them more inclined to commit low level street and gun crime over someone of wealthy status.

First of all, race cannot be ignored. To cut it out to simply avoid someone who lacks depth of thought to follow this theory is abhorrent to me. That smacks of cowardice and racist through passivity.

Secondly, I'm not jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. Neither was Camaro nor Ceratisa. My focus is on historical and sociological circumstances which are unique to the US...not making any conclusions about crime as a racial trait.

Finally, I am considering this economic disadvantage. Furthermore, I am offering an explanation of why that is so. Which brings us back around to the over-arching question: reducing gun crime. Numerous academic studies have shown that gun control is not linked to crime...whereas economic conditions are. Therefore, it is important to understand WHY such economic disadvantages exist. Once we identify these causes...we may address them through public policy.

Simply pointing out that these economic disadvantages exist and that the economically disadvantaged often (not always) resort to crime...does nothing to solve the problem.

Mason is 100% correct inthat the US has a fairly unique, and not so laudble racial situation. Canada does NOT share that with the US. The US' race relations is much more akin to the French's relations with their Muslim immigrant population. It is extremely tenuous and loaded with mistrust, distrust, and dislike on both sides.

Six is one half dozen the other.

It is very key to understanding why comparisons between the US and those countries fails to explain the phenomenon of US gun crime.

At 1/27/13 09:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/27/13 09:15 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 1/27/13 06:31 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

There's a direct correlation between poverty and street crime. I ask you to consider the poverty levels between Canada, Europe, Australia and USA. Note all countries I previously denoted are highly developed 1st world countries with very similar class structure and lifestyle.

Yes the poverty-crime link is strong and causal. BUT there are major social differences between the US and those countries that significantly change the character of our class structure. We have two significant minority populations that make up an urban population that is a permanent second class with sub-par educational systems and limited economic opportunities. These sociological phenomenon is not present in Canada, Europe, or Australia.

At 1/27/13 02:53 PM, Ericho wrote: Yeah, I think it's a bad idea to have 100% gun ban, that is simply unconstitutional. Restrictions haven't been shown to hurt anyone much.

But here's the thing...how much more can we expect from further regulation?

I mean look at assault weapons bans. Assault rifle clones like the AR-15 and AK-47s are not used in crime. So why would they effect crime rates?

Also, think about it this way: if you're spending money putting law enforcement on the streets enforcing laws aimed at guns that are not commonly used in crime...where can you better put that money to use?

At 1/27/13 01:03 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Still a POS

I've never shot one so I don't know.

More like a semi Truck not sports car. Only a dumbass would want to own one. The retards get the chrome out ones.

The analogy is that it is an expensive toy that is not all that functional. It is used to show off wealth and status...and compensate.

A gun is not defensive it's an offensive killing machine.

*sigh* A gun is neither. It is the situation that determines whether or not it used offensively or defensively. This is a silly, foolish, and above all ignorant statement.

At 1/27/13 12:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/27/13 12:45 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 09:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: All I know is that when I went to the the shooting range I shot a Desert Eagle .50cal

Lie

Also shot a .357 Magnum Revolver and some other smaller hand guns 9mm I think or similar but IMO the .357 was the best handling and more than enough stopping power. The Degal .50cal is an all american made Piece of shit because it's way to heavy and bulky, it handles like shit, the accuracy is shit and it's tiring to use and to loud.

* The Desert Eagle actually originated in Israel.
* You are right, a .50 calibur handgun is like a luxury sports car. It is about having money to burn and flaunting your status.
* A .357 is probably the best self-defense gun you can buy. It can, usually, fire both .38 (cheaper) and .357 which is a magnum round. So you can do most of your training/practicing cheaply.

At 1/26/13 02:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Funny you have nothing to back up your claims but your incessant whining that everyone agrees with you LOL. Further you are trying to imply that the law system is infallible and perfect instead of basing your ideals about gun ownership and so called rights on morals and respect you cop out to a corrupt system of coercion and oppression to justify your agenda.

Dude...I have a wide body of scientific literature backing me up. I also have a wide breadth of experience on this topic from which to speak authoritatively. And I have posted links ad nauseum on this BBS. The person who makes claims with nothing backing them up...is you.

Secondly, how can I whine that everyone agrees with me when there are many on this BBS who disagree as well as a minority percentage of academics? This is a reach.

Thirdly, guess what? Promoting gun rights is fundamentally counter to the idea that the 'law system' is perfect! By advocating for gun rughts I am basically admitting:
* Elected officials are corruptable and power corrupts (absolute power corrupts absolutely).
* Police are also corruptable and are invested with great power and that gun rights are a balance to the power of the police and a bulwark against an absolute police state.
* Police are incapable of adequately providing protection, and that a fundamental human right is the concept of self-defense.
However, by advocating taking all guns out of civilian hands YOU are implicity and de facto placing your tust in an infallible and perfect system. Not me. :)

Finally, my advocacy of gun rights is based upon a philosophy and moral framework that supports a free society. I support gun rights because they are a bulwark against corruption, coercion, and oppression. Self-defense is the fundamental human and civil right.

Your position on this issue either reveals contradictions in your thought process or that you are troll. :)

At 1/26/13 08:56 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: No I think you shouldn't want a gun because it's a fucking self-defecation neanderthal tendancy that modern society should strive to destroy.

How so? You present no logic or reason. Just a bunch of fear-based, ignorant emotion. While your statement may pass for 'cosmopolitan' in today's Urban towers of Intelligentsia...it lacks any sort of nuance or insight.

At 1/27/13 01:30 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

Military aircraft (Well, what we're talking about anyone) are almost exclusively offensive in nature. When they escort, they are for seeking out and exterminating threats. Armed security is more defensive.

Escort missions are defensive in nature. And there are many, many defensive applications of fighter aircraft.

They are far from being exclusively offensive.

At 1/26/13 02:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 01:56 PM, Feoric wrote: I'd posit that comparing Obama to Hitler or Mao is an example of going for maximum irrational emotional appeal.

I'm not comparing them, I'm pointing out similarities.

This just seemed suddenly appropriate. :)

At 1/26/13 02:07 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I was wondering this too, because in every school in my school district, there were at the very least security guards, and all the high schools had one to two full time cops, with a heavy police presence nearby due to how their patrols worked, with other cops having full time duties two blocks over

Where do you live? It could be the size that makes the difference. Afterall, many schools serving small communities may lack the resources to have resource officers. And it's not just the school district...it could be the police force too. The police force could be lacking in manpower to support full time cops in schools.

Afterall, many of these shootings happen in smaller cities and towns.

At 1/26/13 02:02 PM, Feoric wrote: The strange thing with NK and SK is that both of them believe that they will be unified at some point in the future. I think that's arguably the greatest "threat" if you want to look at it that way. The cost SK would have to pay to assimilate the horribly impoverished citizens and the crumbling infrastructure will likely cost trillions.

Yes and no.

SK: We'll reunify when NK collapses (until then we've got to keep the regime alive as long as possible).
NK: We'll reunify when we can invade and take back/liberate SK.

When I was there, it is a dream that South Koreans feverently want emotionally. On the other hand, they know that reunification will be infinately harder (sociologically, politically as well as economically)...so they want to put off that day of reckoning. So logically and in their heads they don't want reunification.

So sadly for the NK people...an evil regime is propped up by SK, China, Japan and the US.

At 1/26/13 12:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

That being said Murder is not defensive it is offensive which is why we need to disarm the population because they don't even understand that there is a huge difference. Cops are trained to intelligently take down a target not necessarily shoot to KILL whereas an untrained pleb with a gun is more than likely going to panic and light up the target up which is murder. Pepper spray is self defense, Karate is self defense but shooting someone in the head even if under the guise of self defense is still murder.

No...murder, as Camaro is pointing out, can be either defensive or offensive. As the only attorney I know posting here on NG, I think on these matters his opinion are authoritative and defenitive.

Furthermore, you're making some erroneous assumptions here.

1) Cops are trained to shoot center-mass (ie: the torso)...much like people going through CCW training are taught to do. Furthermore, any 'plebe' who goes and target shoots a human form will notice that the target rings are located center-mass...not in the head. Now here's the thing about head shots...anyone who aims for the head who is not a sniper or special forces is a moron. It is a small, highly mobile target. So any 'plebe' aiming for it...is probably going to miss.

2) It is nice to sit there stroking yourself and thinking how much of a man you are for being able to take care of someone with just your bare hands or melee weapons. But I don't give a shit about your puffed-up male ego. My ex-wife was one of the 25% of women who have been raped (unless you know 3 or less women...we all know a woman who has been sexually assaulted). So what about a woman who is lacking in physical prowess or the man who does not know how to fight? Also, pepper spray is horribly inadequate. See that's the problem with chemical weapons...once out of the canister you no longer control them. Often times, the sprayer gets incapacitated as well...especially if there is a height differential. God created man...Sam Colt made man equal.

3) More people get injured (about double) when a cop pulls their gun than when a civilian...I mean 'plebe'...pulls theirs.

The reality is LL1...you are grossly underinformed on this topic which oddly puts in a positon 180 degrees from your anti-fascism rants.

At 1/26/13 11:21 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 02:26 AM, Feoric wrote: My high school had 1 cop (who was awesome) and 2-3 security guards on the premise every day. Is this uncommon? I was under the assumption that this was the norm throughout the country, but it must have just been from living in a yuppie Connecticut town.

My school had a cop or two as well. However the number of poeple saying this would be "outlandish" makes me think it's not that common, for some reason.

I'm old. 20 years ago when I graduated, there was no police presence. Nor do I think there is one still. At the two schools I sub at there is no police presence.

Also, until '92 we could bring our guns to school as long as they were kept in our trucks/cars.

At 1/25/13 09:42 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
That's horseshit. One quick google search finds that Pakistan (one of the countries) has the same "right to bare arms". I highly doubt a single one of those countries has a gun ban, but by all means prove me wrong if you can.

2 words: North Korea.

As for the African countries guns are so common the AK-47 is called the African credit card.

At 1/25/13 03:05 PM, theburningliberal wrote: How does that work when the requirements for office require certain age limitations? You would either have to repeal the 26th Amendment or amend the text I cited above.

The age limitiations is the core of why this would give us a better republic. So they remain. By eliminating the EC you're having to amend the constitution, ergo re-work the 26th Amendment as well.

At 1/25/13 04:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/25/13 04:12 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/25/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No really as I agree that NYC, LA, Chicago, need more gang control and more gun control of the gangs.

Those areas have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Doesn't deter gangs from obtaining guns one bit.

I would say that you have no authority or experience to state weather or not the Police and gun control laws are doing a good job in mitigating gun related homicides in the American ghettos.

But I am qualified.

In the heart of gangland...the police's authority only exists on paper. They are out-gunned and stay away.

As for gun control...no it does not work. Further gun control will not reduce gun violence in the US.

As I've thought about it...perhaps we need to both get rid of the electoral college and reform how we vote.

I propose that when we do away with the EC we also make it that in order to vote for our elected officials...you must also meet all qualifications for that office. It's common sense: if a person has to have a certain level of familiarity with their district, maturity, etc...should we not also require that of our electorate?

As for amendments and the like...we should allow everyone 18 years and older to vote.

At 1/25/13 12:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There are specific schools where a higher level of security is needed, but Fontana California, a relatively quiet suburb, is NOT one of them. The remainder of schools disstricts, may run into an event where high caution is needed once a year. These aren't bad enough to warrant guns on campus. The number of schools districts that will have such a bad event in the existence of the district at all is statistically none.

Hey...I agree with you totally. That not all schools need the same level of security. These guns in particular, are probably not that big of a necessity. But at the same time...it is not that much of an extravagence either.

This is still a bad idea. Teachers are there to teach, not to patrol the hallways like a sheriff out of Tombstone. Many students are already intimidted by their teachers. Giving teachers guns is hardly a way to endear the students to them.

I think you're overstating this. If teachers were to be allowed to carry...they should be required to keep it concealed. If we allow guns to be carried in school...only the armed teachers, the principal, superintendent and the school board president should know who is carrying.

If someone (no matter what their position) reveals who is carrying...they are automatically terminated keeping only the minimum pay and benefits allowed under the law.

There are two types of gun control that I think would work. Gun monitoring (strong background checks as well as a single national database) and making the possession of a gun without resgistering equal to failure to reister as a sex offender. The second is complete gun control. The removal of all legal guns DOES make committing a gun crime exponentially harder, and will deter many if not most, of the spur of the moment gun crimes (which make up the near entirety of US gun crimes).

Stronger background checks: I agree there is room for this. However, I do not completely trust Obama on this since he is trying to limit consumer options (ie: trying to bring Walmart in with the promise that gun buyers will buy from them instead of independent FFL dealers at gun shows). But I do appreciate Obama making an exemption gor guns left to family members after a person dies.

Registration/database: These have very low utility and have been consistently shown not to work. All they do is cost money...not solve problems. Look at Canada. With a population 1/10 of ours...it cost them $2 billion and was recently given up as a failure.

So do you want to throw $20 billion at something that is consistently proven to be a failure...or spend it on programs that will encourage economic growth? How many school counselors could we hire with that $20 billion?

SOURCE
I looked at 2009. I looked at the categories that indicated for spur of the moment murders that did not involve an illegal (ie: narcotics) or other activity that is borderline criminal (ie: gang membership. Just being a Blood, Crypt, or Latin King is not illegal). And I came up with the following number: 3,808. I included the following categories:

* Romantic triangle
* Child killed by babysitter
* Brawl due to influence of alcohol
* Argument over money or property
* Other arguments

Now looking at the data, there is a cluster of mudrers centered around age, peaking in the 20-24 year old age range. Now one of the things we know about adolescent psychology is adolescence lasts, in Western society, until the mid-20s. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate our 21 to buy a handgun law. In 2009, hanguns were used in 89% (controlling for the two unknown/unreported categories listed in table 310) of murders. We could do this while maintaining second amendment rights because:

* 18-24 year olds would retain the right to self-defense via shotguns.
* We would not be banning them nor their possession.
* As you've pointed out, an item's purpose is important in determining if it is a reasonable restriction. Handguns have a very limited role for the military...and in fact they are the only firearms with the original purpose being to kill people. Plus they are exceedingly useful to criminals and criminal behavior.

If people are serious about gun violence...looking at assault rifles is like having a nuerologist x-raying your ass to check for a brain tumor.

And while yes...taking away guns will lead to a reduction in firearm homicides...there are still other ways for the criminally minded to kill and hurt. But how many more people will be put at risk because now they lack the means to defend themselves from violent people?

There are many sources of funding for things like these. As the story said, one school police district used funds it generated from collecting fees for services they provided. As for this district they did not mention where the money came from. It could've come from a grant (either private or government) which stipulated what the money could be spent on. So it may have been an either get the guns and get the money...or get nothing. So it could be moot on where the resources are allocated.

Now if these were district funds that they had discretion on...I see both sides. On one hand they are prepping for a statistically improbable event. Therefore, they may never be used other than target practice. Thus the money could be spent better elsewhere.

On the other hand, $14,000 is a small amount of money when talking about a school's budget...especially one this large. Plus it is a one-time expense so its not going to be a recurring expense like even a part-time employee would be.

In the end, the school board (or the police chief) made a call knowing all the particulars and threat assessments. So if they are comfortable with it...then I don't think it was either a monumentally stupid or brilliant idea.

At 1/25/13 12:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No, because the schools are not in danger of shootings. The kind of violenece that does occur at schools is of a kind where use of guns to stop it is innappropriate, but is very much preventable through the open ear of a counselor.

I totally agree with you that school shootings are very rare. Also, the average day-to-day violence can and should be solved with words and not bullets.

On the other hand, in class and on my teacher's union's website...I'm getting the sense that allowing teachers to carry is not something that is all that of a small of a % anymore. I'm hearing people who do not like guns being at least open to the thought now.

I don't support gun control because of school shootings. I support gun control because of gun violenece in general.

And yet...gun control does not effect gun violence. I think some degree of gun control is appropriate...but I don't think there is much more that can be gained from new gun control laws beyond tinkering with our background checks.

At 1/25/13 02:42 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 1/24/13 10:36 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Fort Hood and military bases are gun free zones.

Odd, military bases are some of the very few places that aren't gun free in Canada. Would have figured the same for America.

This is a little difficult to parse.

When I lived on base in base family housing you could own a gun and have it on base. However, you had to go get your commander's approval and turn in a form with the gun model and seriel number on it to the SPs or MPs (I lived on both Air Force and Army bases). The commander could, if he wanted, deny you the ability to keep your gun on base.

If you were a single airman and lived in the dorms, you had to store any privately owned firearms in the SP armory. Same thing if your commander disallowed you keeping a gun in family housing.

However, you're not allowed to bring it to work. Basically all you are allowed to do is transport it to and from where you target practice.

So while yes...you may own and keep guns in family housing...your workplace IS a gun free zone. So the Ft. Hood shooting did happen in a gun free zone.

At 1/24/13 03:07 PM, Fim wrote:

At 1/20/13 09:29 AM, Zanroth wrote:

Why are you bumping a thread that's 6 years old?

Because he (?) asked a sensible question... and theanswer is important to understand comparative social science.

I'm in favor of the idea of psychological profiling before allowing someone to acquire a permit,

Can I just re-state, I LOVE the practice they have going on in New Zealand. It seems like an ideal way of dealing with gun culture responsible ...

Is your goal regulating gun culture or curbing violent crime? The two are totally different things. There is no demonstrable public healthtrends to justify regulation. Furthermore gun culture and gun crime is not causally related.

So all you are doing is wasting resources that could solve root causes. You could cost lives through public policy neglect and incompetence.

Also the activity of shooting and owning a gun are not complex nor is there a trend that shows it is a high risk activity that would require licensing and all that training.

I still feel that killing is wrong, even if you're killing some one who is trying to rob you, and I morally resent anybody who thinks that killing another person is something that they should prepare well for...

As I've said before... I agree that killing over simple robbery is bad. But it is perfectly moral to defend oneself from violence. You may keep your moral resentment as long as it does not effect my safety. But my security is not worth my neighbor's illusionary sense of safety.