Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 60,538 Views
  • 1,682 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:33:06 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:13 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 01:49 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Like I've linked the DoJ doesn't think it will have an affect. And the most fatal school shooting of all time was carried out with two handguns with a 10 and 15 round capacity.
Most mass shootings in general occur in gun free zones.
Guess who actually cares about gun free zones (Hint not mass murderers)
Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.

Which they weren't so you can't actually say that.

So tell me why Adam Lanza couldn't do as much damage to children with the supposedly high powered "assault weapon" that a student could do on a college campus with two pistols?

That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.

The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:40:11 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:28 PM, Saen wrote: Lmao I'm sorry did you mean to say 36 firearms?

sorry I am on my phone posting.

And what about Louisiana having the highest homicide rate? Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, all much some of the highest murder rates, even higher than New York or New Jersey

California and Chicago as of 2011 made up 85% of the Homicides and other crimes with firearms, I use to have the link to source but my bookmarks got erased.

A high concentration of guns along with little to no regulation is a huge liability. This is exactly why the southern states have the highest murder rates.

30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:53:58 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Which they weren't so you can't actually say that.

So tell me why Adam Lanza couldn't do as much damage to children with the supposedly high powered "assault weapon" that a student could do on a college campus with two pistols?

450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.

The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.

My logic is Adam used a weapon with plenty of ammo capacity, rounds with enough power to shoot through desks and doors, a high rate of fire, and deadly accuracy. He killed all his victims (other than himself) with one gun, even though he was carrying two handguns. This is why the Sandy Hook shooting resurfaced the debate on the legality of assault rifles and high capacity mags.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:59:51 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.

It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations. Here, here, and here my good man.

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:00:56 Reply

450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

Little children DURRRRRR


That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.

The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.
My logic is Adam used a weapon with plenty of ammo capacity, rounds with enough power to shoot through desks and doors, a high rate of fire, and deadly accuracy. He killed all his victims (other than himself) with one gun, even though he was carrying two handguns. This is why the Sandy Hook shooting resurfaced the debate on the legality of assault rifles and high capacity mags.

He wasn't that accurate. And please link actual sources indicating that he only used the AR-15 to shoot everyone?
Your logic is based on your emotions and lack of understanding. You go on to mention your feelings on the subject numerous times rather then relying on facts or even DoJ findings. But I guess you know better then the DoJ

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:06:12 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:59 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.
It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations.
Here,

thats just murder statistics

here,

UN data? not reliable a bit.

and here my good man.

its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:09:53 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states

That last link is from 1990...


Wut?

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:13:53 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics

This is pretty cool. Isn't it ironic how every state in the bible belt has a murder rate higher than the U.S. average? I guess Baptists scratched out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:14:05 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:09 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:
At 2/22/13 03:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states
That last link is from 1990...

mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:30:03 Reply

Homicide is down yearly, why are guns such a huge issue that needs to be fixed by banning weapons that contribute only a fraction to our firearm related homicides?

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:30:08 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:13 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 03:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics
This is pretty cool. Isn't it ironic how every state in the bible belt has a murder rate higher than the U.S. average? I guess Baptists scratched out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

You need to quit looking at rates, they're misleading. Start looking at actual numbers and social interactions/causations.
This graph is particularly for firearm murders.
SC firearm related murders was 223.
NY firearm related murders was 445.
CA firearm related murders was 1220.

Compare to populations of 4.7 mil, 8.2 mil, and 38 mil respectively. Between these three, there seems to be a consistent trend when it comes to firearm murders and population sizes. Roughly, 200 murders for every 4 million people. (Yes, Cali is still off, but flat numbers are easier to work with.)

Still though, firearm murders... ehh not very big numbers.


Wut?

BBS Signature
SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:33:34 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.

His NYtimes link is what I was referring too. Did you mean to post a link in that reply?


Wut?

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:54:54 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:33 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:
At 2/22/13 03:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.
His NYtimes link is what I was referring too. Did you mean to post a link in that reply?

what you quoted me in your post.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 16:40:20 Reply

@ Saen

I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.

But I did some digging on Fl game laws. Road hunting is a prohibited method for taking game. As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.

You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.

But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold:
1) I am a landowner, I own and live on 52 acres in the middle of the country. One of the issues we have in Missouri is the health of our deer population. As the human population has expanded, the deer's natural predators have shrunk in population whereas people feeding deer because they are cute and cool to have around causes them to overpopulate and succumb to diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and starvation during droughts and harsh winters. As a landowner I have a responsibility to monitor the wildlife on my land. I can take up to two deer for free a year as well as an additional two for $15. I can also allow other hunters on my land. How many I take per year is dependant upon the size of the herd and their health which I monitor with trail cams.
2) I also hunt because it IS a source of cheap meat. Of the deer around here will yield 70-80lbs of meat. The cost to process it is about $70-80. So I get steak and deer burger for about $1/lb. I cannot get meat at the store for cheaper.

As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.
2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.

The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.

3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.

At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote: It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.

But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.

Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.

At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.

... The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.

Yes it is. But here's the thing, I've shown repeatedly that your solutions to gun violence are based upon erroneous assumptions. Therefore, while guns are used in those killings...they are not the root cause of those killings. I have shown you multiple reasons why further gun control would be counter-productive and largely ineffective.

I have also shown you policy suggestions that would have a far greater impact on reducing gun violence...but would suffer from further gun control policies that would divert money, resources, and manpower into other agencies (predominately law enforcement). And yet all you retort with is retrenchment in your false assumptions.


Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.

We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.

Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 17:20:02 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:13 PM, Saen wrote: Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.

1) Lanza killed his mother with four shots from a .22...not the AR-15.

2) Re-read what has been written. I have not said that the AR-15 is NOT lethal...I have pointed out the fact that is not as lethal as the majority of other firearms including pistols, shotguns, or hunting rifles. So please, don't twist my words.
a) 20 of his victims were very young children who are especially vulnerable to traumatic injury which any gunshot wound (irregardless of calibur) counts as. For example they cannot afford to loose near as much blood as an adult or teen.
b) Lanza may not have been spraying and praying. He may have been taking aimed shots for the head and/or heart. GSWs to the brain leave only a 5% chance of survival, while GSWs to the heart leave only a 15%.
c) Lanza also shot many of his victims multiple times, the highest I've read is 11. This means a much faster bleed-out rate.

3) The AR-15/M-16 family of guns are prone to misfires, but much of these can be mitigated by: maintenance, small magazine size, and type of ammo used. Lanza appears to have been very well trained and his personality disorder may have made him a very neat and meticulous individual who maintained the gun.

4) Inaccurate: again you're either not understanding what is being said, cherry picking what is being said, or twisting my words. The AR-15 is highly accurate...for an assault rifle class weapon. However, bolt and lever action guns are even more accurate. Don't confuse scale with lack of ability.

On a final not with Lanza: PBS' Frontline included an interesting fact. Seems that Lanza changed mags well before it was necessary. This indicates that he probably did not take advantage of the AR-15's high rate of fire...or the volume of fire provided by the LCMs. This also means that the mags' chances of failing were reduced because as the magazine spring decompresses the less rapidly/forcefully is the next round loaded...which is why these mags are prone to failure. So Lanza is an outlier and not typical of the shooter who choses an assault rifle clone. Just like the DC Snipers.

====

If Lanza did indead take aimed shots and did not merely spray and pray...then he could have accomplished the same amout of death with handguns with smaller mag capacities. Even if we're talking about seven round mags. Look at Cho. He took aimed shots with only 100 rounds at the same range. He just used less bullets.

Which is largely why the following argument does not hold water:

At 2/22/13 02:53 PM, Saen wrote: 450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

Cho did not blindly spray the entire population of VT with rounds. He went to a single building and stalked from classroom to classroom much like Lanza most likely did. The difference is Cho needed less bullets because the 9mm loaded with JHPs can kill adults with a fewer bullets.

(Also, since neither school's population was clustered together...makes this point very irrelevent.)

At 2/22/13 02:59 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.
It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations. Here, here, and here my good man.

Again...highly irrelevent and from a scientific/academic perspective: invalid. There are culture and socio-economic differences between countries that makes cross-national studies very problematic. Furthermore, I would not rely upon them if I were on your side of the debate. Because while they do make a compelling and reasonable argument on their surface...once you get past the descriptive statistics what light is shed points away from gun availability and to education, economic opportunity, and racial tensions.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 17:30:10 Reply

At 2/22/13 04:40 PM, TheMason wrote:
I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.

I appreciate it, but this is not the case. It is completely legal to hunt from your truck so long as it is not moving and the motor is shut off. This is by far the most popular method of hunting deer in Florida.

"Shooting from vehicles, powerboats or sailboats moving under power. Motors must be shut off or sails furled, and the vesselâEUTMs progress must cease from such motor or sail before hunters may take wildlife."


As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.

Once again not the case in Florida, perfectly legal to hunt deer with dogs.


You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.

It is legal and it gives hunters a bad name.


But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold...

I don't think any less of you for being a hunter, as an outdoorsman and a student of biology I have respect for decent hunters and their role in maintaining ecosystems, but they are few and far between.

When I get time to travel I plan on hunting invasive pythons and water monitors in the Everglades and hopefully I'll get the chance to spearfish Lionfish and feed them to native sharks and grouper.

As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.

Hunting deer ethically isn't really a concern to me, but I understand why ethics laws are in place for vertebrates.

2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.

Bolt-Action rifles have always had decent accuracy, but never a rate of fire or ammo capacity comparable to a heavy assault rifle. Like you said, you can hunt with an AK-47 and have similar power and accuracy to a bolt-action , but you get semi-auto and much larger capacity.

It's just my opinion, and it's nothing to get worked up over, hunting with a heavy assault rifle takes the sport out of it.

The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.

3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.

Well I'm not one of those guys who thinks you shouldn't hunt with a gun or protect your home with one. Whether you make the sarcastic claim that we should protect ourselves or hunt with swords, either way it's absurd. I'm not afraid of guns nor will I ever be a gun fanatic, it's too expensive and unnecessary.


But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.

You're being quite reasonable, it's the monkeys that keep hooting, hollering, and jumping in the fray thinking I'm out to get their guns that are driving me crazy!

Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.

At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.

Like educating poor populations on excessive gun-buying (addiction) and it's role in the circle of poverty.

We have these debates on guns specifically to determine which are ethical, appropriate, and safe for civilian use. Because of this recent massacre committed by a common high capacity assault rifle, the debate on the Ar-15 has resurfaced.


We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.

And I agree with you, gun laws are not the most effective nor cost effective in preventing gun violence. Education on the circle of poverty and dedicated funding towards the poor will not only be the most effective in reducing violence, but also in bulking and strengthening our middle class by reducing lower class numbers.


Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism

Poverty is the leading cause of violence, excessive population growth, and disease everywhere in the world. It is the root of almost every major global issue.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 18:20:15 Reply

At 2/22/13 05:30 PM, Saen wrote: Bolt-Action rifles have always had decent accuracy, but never a rate of fire or ammo capacity comparable to a heavy assault rifle. Like you said, you can hunt with an AK-47 and have similar power and accuracy to a bolt-action , but you get semi-auto and much larger capacity.

You get the similar power and accuracy at close range...up to about 100-150 yards. Beyond that, the assault rifle round begins to drop.

Also, don't use the term 'heavy assault rifle'. It's an oxymoron...by definition an assault rifle is not a heavy round. It makes the person saying it sound uninformed (much like I've hear Piers Morgan say 'magazine clips').

Semi-auto, as I've said before, does not give the hunter the advantage you think. A hunter with a lever action or pump shotgun is capable of just as quick a follow-up shot.

As for LCM...as you can tell from both FL and MO law LCMs are illegal to use while hunting. So this point is irrelevent.


It's just my opinion, and it's nothing to get worked up over, hunting with a heavy assault rifle takes the sport out of it.

I'm not getting worked up over it...I'm just pointing out that using an AK-47 to take a deer is nowhere near as unsporting or unrealistic as many may think it is. Furthermore, given that the 7.62x39 round is less powerful than standard deer loads it makes hunting more safe in the event a hunter misses.

The perceived loss in 'sport' is more than outweighed by the gains made in the safety category.

Like educating poor populations on excessive gun-buying (addiction) and it's role in the circle of poverty.

We have these debates on guns specifically to determine which are ethical, appropriate, and safe for civilian use. Because of this recent massacre committed by a common high capacity assault rifle, the debate on the Ar-15 has resurfaced.

Yes...absolutely true. However, when you look into the facts and trends the argument that these guns are not ethical, appropriate or safe for civilian use fade away.

In the end, the hysteria over 'assault rifles' is more about feeling the need 'to do something' and a public ritual of cleansing evil from our midst. The shooter died so our justice system cannot work on behalf of the victims so we transfer our anger and need for vengance on a symbol: the gun used.

We'd probably be having a conversation about handguns (and one far more able to be supported by facts) had he used his handguns instead.


And I agree with you, gun laws are not the most effective nor cost effective in preventing gun violence. Education on the circle of poverty and dedicated funding towards the poor will not only be the most effective in reducing violence, but also in bulking and strengthening our middle class by reducing lower class numbers.

Agreed...see there is common ground. :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-23 17:33:33 Reply

Obama's Missed Moment

I was talking to a friend of mine today about this issue. And something struck me: Obama missed a HUGE moment where he could have become a truly transformative president. In the wake of Sandy Hook he has tacked along with his base going along with championing gun control as the centerpiece of his administration's response to the probelm of school shootings. In this way he maintains the status quo and further divides the country.

Instead, had he actually paid attention to the existing social science (instead of going along with the Left's special interest groups) he could have used Sandy Hook to push through legislation on the following fronts:

EDUCATION: Given that education is one of the key predictors of people becoming criminals; he could use the picture of Hadiya Pendleton to push for education spending that would help put inner-city schools on-par with suburban schools. Furthermore, he could use it for pushing through his pre-school initiative as well.

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: Given that economic opportunity is also equally (if not more) strong a predictor as education, he could have used the gun violence debate as a spring board to luanch a new "Great Society" set of programs aimed at revitalizing the inner cities and giving young black men better options than either joining the Bloods or the Crypts.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Other social programs aimed at tearing down racial prejudice could have been proposed, using Trayvon Martin as a poster child here.

HEALTH CARE: New mental health initiatives could have been undertaken that would satisfy his base that's pissed off at the deinstitutionalization efforts of Reagan.

Had he been a voice of reason declaring that guns are not the problem, that tragedies such as Aurora and Newtown are exceedingly rare and that it is safe to drop our kids off at first grade. That we are a society that comes together far more than we tear each other apart. And that every dollar spent on gun control schemes that have been tried to little or inconclusive effect is a dollar taken away from programs that would truly offer change and have an impact.

He could have said that the old, liberal and Democratic solutions did not work and that his party is big enough to admit it. That their old policies and solutions would only save 1 life, dozens of lives or at most...hundreds of lives. But by offering a slate of social programs...Democrats and Republicans, gun owner and those skitish around guns, could come together...and save thousands of lives.

But instead he took the old path. No other issue (abortion comes close) divides our country like guns. By acknowledging that his side's position is based on superstition and fear instead of data and logic and that a significant amount of scientific and academic research indicates that gun control will only have an inconsequential or inconclusive result...he could have calmed nerves and made it where he got anything else on his agenda rather easily.

Now all he's done is kick-up a hornet's nest that will make getting the rest of his agenda through a little more difficult.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-25 21:36:32 Reply

At 2/25/13 04:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
At 2/23/13 05:33 PM, TheMason wrote: Now all he's done is kick-up a hornet's nest that will make getting the rest of his agenda through a little more difficult.
Uh, did you forget Obama's really Manchurian and runs on 9-volt batteries?

What does this have to do with anything I said?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-26 11:12:08 Reply

Sen Dianne Feinstein

On 22 Feb, Dianne Feinstein wrote in the Orange County Register her justifications for renewing the assault weapons ban. In it, she spells out that the bill does not include a confiscation of these types of firearms from people, like me, who already legal owns one or more of these firearms. Furthermore, it does not authorize a mandatory gun buyback program. She goes on to say: âEUoeI hope the facts will lead this debate, and not misperceptions pushed by a gun lobby that seems to care more about the profits of weapon manufacturers than the safety of the American public.âEU
I would like to see the debate guided by facts as well Senator. Unfortunately, while you end your piece by chiding lobbyists and an entire industry, your own opinion is riddled with fallacies, errors, and misperceptions. Here is a list:

* First you try, and fail, to deconstruct the criticism of the assault weapons ban that it is based upon characteristics that are cosmetic in nature and do not increase the effectiveness of the weapons. Your arguments complete with my own deconstruction:
-âEUoeA pistol grip makes it easier for a shooter to rapidly pull the trigger, facilitates firing from the hip and allows a shooter to quickly move the weapon from side to side to spray a wider range.âEU
--Okay, to begin with, I have a Mini-14 and SKS both of which lack a pistol grip. I can pull these triggers just as fast as I can on an AR-15 or AK-47.
--Firing from the hip is a good way to ensure that as few people as possible are hit. This is why in mass shootings where an âEU~assault rifleâEUTM was usedâEU¦less people are hit and thus wounded or killed.
--Spray and pray is a highly ineffective way of killing people. This only works in Hollywood.

-âEUoeBarrel shrouds and forward grips allow shooters to grip weapons with nontrigger hands even as the barrel gets extremely hot from rapidly firing multiple rounds.âEU
--Really? Really Senator? The 1860 Henry rifle is one of the very few rifles I know of not to have a forearm, forestock, or handguard. I hate to break it to you, but the barrel shroud of the AR-15 performs the same exact function as forearms, forestock, or handguards. It is nothing special and all modern rifles have something that allows you to fire the gun after the barrel gets hot. This is the most absurd argument for the AWB that anyone could come up with.

-âEUoeFolding stocks make weapons more portable and concealable,âEU¦âEU
--Folding stocks do make weapons more concealable and better for close quarters applications such as holding up a convenience store. But letâEUTMs not confuse making something more concealable and betterâEU¦and making it concealable and suitable to the situation. See, the high capacity magazine and 18 inch barrel makes it difficult to conceal.

-âEUoeâEU¦while threaded barrels allow the attachment of grenade launchers, flash suppressors and other devices that reduce noise and recoil.âEU
--Wow, one must be crazy to not agree with this. Call me crazy, but grenade launchers are not used in crime. The âEU~grenade launchersâEUTM commonly sold as accessories to AR-15 are 37mm FLARE launchers. The 40mm grenades used by the military are tightly regulated and would not fit in the launcher. As for Yugoslavian SKSs with grenade launcher adaptersâEU¦there is still the problem of getting Soviet/Russian style hand grenades complete with their respective adapters. In short, Senator, you are spreading a misperception here in order to inflate the validity of your argument.
--Flash suppressors: what is wrong with them? You say this casually with no argument as to what makes them uncommon or unusual. But do you realize that traditional rifles do not really have a flash problem because the residual powder from the round is burned up in the longer barrel.
--Silencers are not what you see in movies. Commercially available silencers only reduce noise by 15-43 decibels (dBs). This means a silencer produces a sound between 117dBs to 145dBs. To put this in laymanâEUTMs terms: if you can get approved (or illegally get a hold of) a commercial silencer your gun is going to be as quiet as a chainsaw or rock concert.

-âEUoeAnd replacement bump-fire stocks allow semiautomatic weapons to reach rates of fire approaching those of fully automatic weapons, which have been banned for decades.âEU
--This is the least objectionable thing you say because it does actually alter the way the firearm functions. But be careful that you do not overstate things. Bump fire results in horrible accuracy and if used in a mass shooting event would most likely result in over 90% of their rounds going over peopleâEUTMs head because rapid fire causes dramatic muzzle rise.

-âEUoeLaw enforcement officials agree. Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that military features "enhance our capability" and, as a result, are "meant for the battlefield" - not our streets.âEU
--Use of the mantra âEU~meant for the battlefieldâEUTM is both perpetuating a misperception AND using fear to garner support. See Senator, by bringing the battlefield into the argument you open yourself up to the largest liability your side has: that these are military style firearms. See this actually contradicts the notion that these are âEU~killing machinesâEUTM. See, because of the Hague Convention military small arms ammo cannot make death inevitable. Quite simply, what is used on the battlefield is far less lethal than hunting ammo, self-defense rounds, or shotgun slugs.

* Secondly, you manipulate the facts to try and make them say things they do not actually say.
-âEUoeA Justice Department study found the use of assault weapons traced to crime declined 70 percent nine years after the 1994 ban took effect. Another Justice Department study found the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders. Considering the annual number of gun murders exceeds 11,000, that means hundreds of lives saved.âEU
--The study found that it had no measurable effect on crimes committed by assault rifles because of how rarely those guns are used in crimeâEU¦prior to the 1994 ban and since then.
--The largest decrease was in âEU~assault pistolsâEUTM.
--The study found that the part of the ban that had the most effect would be on Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs). However, how much would that help things? According to the same study LCMs were used in 17-26% of gun crimes. However, shootings involving more than 10 rounds are used in less than 2% of shootings and accounting for only 5% of all firearms deaths. So Senator, while they may âEU~workâEUTMâEU¦they donâEUTMt accomplish much.
-âEUoeIn Virginia, the Washington Post reported the number of assault weapon seizures declined during the 1994-2004 ban, but climbed following its expiration.âEU
--In 2012, of the 7,500 guns confiscated by the Chicago PDâEU¦only 300 were assault rifles. This is only 0.04% of guns. Even if the âEU~climbâEUTM meant more guns like the AR-15 an AK-47 (images of which in police impound room are commonly used to generate fear) doubledâEU¦is 0.02% a significant thing to spend the effort and money to curb?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-26 11:13:40 Reply

* You also speak of the Constitutionality of the ban. Yes in Heller v. DC the Supreme Court ruled that âEUoethe right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." As well as "dangerous and unusual weapons" are subject to restriction.
--Military rifles typically fire rounds that are not designed specifically to kill, whereas hunting, self-defense, and shotgun shells are designed to make death happen quicker and more probable. In fact, in many states the 5.56mm/.223 ammo used in the AR-15 is considered too small to effectively kill deer. I would not consider a firearm that is unethical to use to kill a deer because it canâEUTMt guarantee the killâEU¦an unusually dangerous firearm.
--These firearms are commonly held by the civilian populace and have found legitimate sporting purposes from competitive shooting, self-defense, and hunting. While I would never use an AR-15 to hunt deerâEU¦I use my AK-47 clone. Armed with the right ammo it is very effective at taking deer. Combined with his power, which is less than traditional deer rifles, makes the AK more safe for hunting in the woods or relatively short fields.

====

So in conclusion, Senator, you do not make an effective case for this legislation. Your attempt at deconstructing the âEU~cosmeticâEUTM criticism of this legislation you are unsuccessful and fail. You are flat-out wrong and your ignorance on this topic is left exposed. Furthermore, in order to adhere to Justice ScaliaâEUTMs criteria that these weapons may constitutionally be restricted due to âEUoedangerous and unusualâEU characteristicsâEU¦you need to make that case. Instead, this case has yet to be made.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
xXmcrloverXx
xXmcrloverXx
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-04 18:34:43 Reply

Banning guns will never solve America's issues of violent crimes. If guns are banned how are law abiding citizens supposed to protect themselves? Murderers and lunatics will find a way to get them either way. Instead of focusing on this "problem" we need to put our efforts into issues that are real. For example, the deficit. That is a huge problem. People need to open their eyes and see the bigger picture. Currently I am in school studying criminal justice. So I believe I am a little credible to talk about this.


Live the life you have dreamed

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-04 18:43:53 Reply

Eh I think Mason slayed this one..

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-04 18:58:23 Reply

Just got my first of two "AR-15s" in the mail today, after ordering them online. Surprisingly, they did not ship directly to my house and I actually had to go through a background check. With my pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and my high capacity magazine, I was absolutely appalled that it functioned exactly the same as any other semi-automatic rifle on the market, and was not a complete killing machine when I took it to the range.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-04 21:33:10 Reply

At 3/4/13 06:43 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Eh I think Mason slayed this one..

I think I may take a little break from this debate. You guys have things under control.

But be ready, I don't share other's surity that the AWB is DOA. Too much money, the right moment, and emboldened gun control sponsors.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
IGreenI
IGreenI
  • Member since: Mar. 1, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-14 09:43:38 Reply

Why on earth would anyone need a $1mill home; 5 watches; 3 cars; $120 haircuts.? These questions have kept me up many a night, but usually I just poke my head out on the back porch and fire off a full clip from my AR 15, then I feel right as rain.


I tried, later then.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-14 10:05:48 Reply

At 3/14/13 09:43 AM, IGreenI wrote: Why on earth would anyone need a $1mill home; 5 watches; 3 cars; $120 haircuts.? These questions have kept me up many a night, but usually I just poke my head out on the back porch and fire off a full clip from my AR 15, then I feel right as rain.

So, not a shotgun?

IGreenI
IGreenI
  • Member since: Mar. 1, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-14 10:36:50 Reply

At 3/14/13 10:05 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
So, not a shotgun?

Not much strategy with em, shotguns. An AR 15 may be loud, noisy and full of heat but at least it plans ahead.


I tried, later then.

Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 52
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-18 01:50:22 Reply

Here's something interesting I found on yahoo that also involves on why Gun Control just doesn't work, here's an a link about the Colorado Sheriff refuses to enforce the Gun Control Bill.

That link also points out to why Gun Control just doesn't work witch Colorado Sheriff John Cooke mentions "Criminals are still going to get their guns" and yes this is true, criminals will still get there hands on any guns as well as any other weapon in order to commit crimes.

Taken for granted the people within the Colorado State Government will one day be (in a legal way) be removed from office for enforcing these Gun Control laws because Gun Control Laws do go AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION of the United States, they do go against the Right to Bear Arms and the Gun Control act of 1968 also goes against the nation's Constitution as well.

Sooner or later, the Gun Control Laws signed by Colorado State Gov. John Hickenlooper are going to be taken to the United States Suprime Court, Gov John Hickenlooper, if your reading this, you better reconsider the idea and abolished the Gun Control Laws you signed within the State of Colorado, they go against the United State's 2nd Amendment Rights as Colorado as with every state within the United States is meant to uphold the 2nd Amendment Rights.

To put it simple Gov. John Hickenlooper, listen to your local Sheriff and reconsider while you still can, for the Local Sheriffs too also uphold the 2nd Amendment rights as seen on this link.