Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 44,042 Views
  • 1,772 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
laughatyourfuneral
laughatyourfuneral
  • Member since: Oct. 3, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-16 13:54:10 Reply

And americans still dont understand why they're the laughing stock of the world.


by all means... ask

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-16 17:47:22 Reply

GUN COMPANIES REFUSE SALES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS WITH STRICT GUN LAWS
Six gun companies have announced plans to stop selling any of their products to any government agency (FBI, ATF, the Marshall Service) in states that severely limit the rights of private gun ownership.Disappointed with New York State lawmakers and other jurisdictions around the country who have passed strict gun control legislation, the companies-composed of firearm manufacturers, gunsmiths, and sporting goods retailers-have announced these policies in the past week.
Their various statements emphasize that such laws create a class of government employees with rights and and a class of citizens without rights. Thus, they refuse to aid the enforcement of such inequality.

W00T giving them hell and the best part is Second Amendment activist groups Guns Save Life and Grass Roots North Carolina are currently urging big gun manufacturers Sig Sauer, Smith and Wesson, and Glock to halt their sales to government agencies within states that have clamped down on their residents' right to bear arms.
how do you like that Obama?

Source

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-16 19:40:29 Reply

At 2/16/13 01:54 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: And americans still dont understand why they're the laughing stock of the world.

Do you have a point, or is resorting to irrelevancies an clever rhetorical stratagem?

But in answer to your clever and deep thought...if the whole world jumped off a bridge would you do it too?


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) 2013-02-16 19:42:11 Reply

At 2/16/13 01:54 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: And americans still dont understand why they're the laughing stock of the world.

Do you have a point, or is resorting to irrelevancies an clever rhetorical stratagem?

But in answer to your clever and deep thought...if the whole world jumped off a bridge would you do it too?


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

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 18:04:06 Reply

God damn I went to the sporting good/hardware store fucking jacked ammunition by 20% and limited boxes to 10 boxes per day a customer.

God can't we just expidite the process and just have Congress vote and.reject the bills already? Get the prices back down. The Pubs wont let it pass anyways

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 18:17:26 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: God damn I went to the sporting good/hardware store fucking jacked ammunition by 20% and limited boxes to 10 boxes per day a customer.

God can't we just expidite the process and just have Congress vote and.reject the bills already? Get the prices back down. The Pubs wont let it pass anyways

Everything is going up in price. Welcome to inflation rampant inflation at that.


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 18:20:47 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Everything is going up in price. Welcome to inflation rampant inflation at that.

Inflation aint the real problem. its the demand that doesn't meet the supply because of knee jerk reaction Legislation by butthurt Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 18:22:18 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Everything is going up in price. Welcome to inflation rampant inflation at that.

Inflation aint the real problem. its the demand that doesn't meet the supply because of knee jerk reaction Legislation by butthurt Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 18:32:32 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:22 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 2/17/13 06:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Everything is going up in price. Welcome to inflation rampant inflation at that.
Inflation aint the real problem. its the demand that doesn't meet the supply because of knee jerk reaction Legislation by butthurt Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people.

As far as you say "Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people." well you must admit this to be a classic case of the few shit Apples wrecking it for the rest. I don't want anymore homicide do you ? Guns make Homicide easier so IMO lets make it harder by taking guns off the street and out of homes. The benefit to all gun owners is that the common criminal will not have access to guns.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 18:34:41 Reply

As far as you say "Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people." well you must admit this to be a classic case of the few shit Apples wrecking it for the rest. I don't want anymore homicide do you ? Guns make Homicide easier so IMO lets make it harder by taking guns off the street and out of homes. The benefit to all gun owners is that the common criminal will not have access to guns.

The strictest gun control city in the country is one of the most violent. And none of those weapons are being obtained legally because of the restrictions.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 19:00:57 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:32 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: As far as you say "Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people." well you must admit this to be a classic case of the few shit Apples wrecking it for the rest.

Obama, Fienstein and Hilary, and the people who use firearms in crimes.

I don't want anymore homicide do you ?

could care less thee will be homicide no mater what with or without guns. I could easily use my barehands.

Guns make Homicide easier so IMO lets make it harder by taking guns off the street and out of homes. The benefit to all gun owners is that the common criminal will not have access to guns.

they tried that in DC, Chicago and California and the crime rates there and it was a huge failure as a social experiment it doesn't matter Criminals and crazy people will always get guns legally.

its a sad reality get over it.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 19:11:24 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:32 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The benefit to all gun owners is that the common criminal will not have access to guns.

But then crime will boil down to who the hardest person is, which doesn't really help people who aren't large males or have enough self-defense training to make up for any physical differences. I don't want it to devolve into it being if I decide to go and attack some old lady, her only recourse would be to wait for help.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 19:26:19 Reply

At 2/17/13 06:34 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
As far as you say "Liberals trying to restrict a fundamental right for the people." well you must admit this to be a classic case of the few shit Apples wrecking it for the rest. I don't want anymore homicide do you ? Guns make Homicide easier so IMO lets make it harder by taking guns off the street and out of homes. The benefit to all gun owners is that the common criminal will not have access to guns.
The strictest gun control city in the country is one of the most violent. And none of those weapons are being obtained legally because of the restrictions.

You guy's have to stop using logical fallacies to back your position up.

Popular Logical fallacy used on NGS forums -

1. ) "Gun Control Does Not Work"

2. ) "The strictest gun control city's in the country are of the most violent."

3. ) "Therefore gun control does not work."

Proper argument on gun control -

1. ) "Gun Control Does Not Work"

Gun control may not be 100% effective at reducing gun related crime and homicide but it does help dramatically reduce gun related crime and homicide.

2. ) "The strictest gun control city's in the country are of the most violent."

This statement is invalid as well as a logical fallacy argument as it implies and tries to guide the conversation in the direction that strict gun control creates more crime and violence.

3. ) "Therefore gun control does not work."

Please cite reputable facts without the use of an invalid logical fallacy that gun control raises gun related crime and homicide.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 20:05:16 Reply

Can you prove what is being said is false? or do you just say it is?

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 20:21:34 Reply

At 2/17/13 07:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Gun control may not be 100% effective at reducing gun related crime and homicide but it does help dramatically reduce gun related crime and homicide.

Background checks yeah it does but banning guns don't and criminals buying guns from legal owners will always happen

This statement is invalid as well as a logical fallacy argument as it implies and tries to guide the conversation in the direction that strict gun control creates more crime and violence.

well then explain where I live where the gun laws are the loosest in the country compared to chicago. people in chicago are disarmed and have no way to defend themselves thus emboldning the criminals. and the FBI and even the Supreme Court admits it.

Please cite reputable facts without the use of an invalid logical fallacy that gun control raises gun related crime and homicide.

Mason and I have posted a whole threads worth have you been bothering to click them? FBI, Bureau of statistics, the ATF, NRA

BillyMays2007
BillyMays2007
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-17 20:50:11 Reply

Gotta say mac, nice copy and pasting


HI BILLY MAYS HERE

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) 2013-02-19 08:23:05 Reply

At 2/17/13 07:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You guy's have to stop using logical fallacies to back your position up.

Actually, I use sound research conducted on this question. I do NOT use 'thought experiments' but instead realworld data to back my position up.

The pro-gun-control crowd on the other hand relies on the 'Appeal to Probablity' logical fallacy in their argument that less guns and/or banning certain types of firearms because it is probably the case. They have no empirical evidence to back it up. All they have is superficial descriptive statistics because when you start applying inferential statistics to realworld data sets the correlation between guns and crime is shown to be insignificant.

Furthermore, it appears that you are invoking the term 'logical fallacy' without understanding what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is a conclusion that does not follow its premises. The arguments I have seen made by most pro-gun people on NG develop good premises and draw a sound, logical conclusion from them. I have seen many pro-gun control posters also post logically sound arguments...however their logic fails to translate into the realworld.


Proper argument on gun control -

1. ) "Gun Control Does Not Work"
Gun control may not be 100% effective at reducing gun related crime and homicide but it does help dramatically reduce gun related crime and homicide.

The reason people such as myself and TonyDG make this claim is this is where the evidence leads us. My personal argument is that we already have 'common sense' and a reasonable level of gun control. And that there is not much more we can do with it. My suggestions for tweaking gun control:

* Provide an internet background check for person-to-person sales that is somewhere between $2-10. Put it on the internet so that it is readily available at gun shows in the age of smart phones and iPads.
* More states should adopt the Missouri way of selling guns to nonresidents: you have to live in a state touching Missouri, or live in Missouri due to military orders or college. In some states like Pennsylvannia they should even restrict sales to people from New york or New Jersey.


2. ) "The strictest gun control city's in the country are of the most violent."
This statement is invalid as well as a logical fallacy argument as it implies and tries to guide the conversation in the direction that strict gun control creates more crime and violence.

This statement is based upon empirical data from realworld observation.
* We have had over 30 years of concealed carry laws in this country and have observed a decrease in crime in those states with it that is significantly larger than the nation-wide decrease in crime. On the other hand, more strict areas of the country have expereinced a slower decrease in the crime rate.


3. ) "Therefore gun control does not work."
Please cite reputable facts without the use of an invalid logical fallacy that gun control raises gun related crime and homicide.

Again, I have posted time and time again links to scientific studies showing that gun control is not effective at reducing crime. These links have been to peer-reviewed, academic journals...one cannot get more reputable than that. That you have been too lazy to actually click on them (or lack the training and/or education to understand them) is not my fault.

Furthermore, my conclusions are not "an invalid logical fallacy"...a term I pointed out earlier that you abuse in your use thereof. They are structured, consistent, and support my conclusions. Furthermore, they are supported by realworld datasets.


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

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-19 09:12:31 Reply

The media has been going crazy over this one
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/us/illinois-teen-death-gun-vio lence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
But they keep ignoring that the place where Obama was from (Democratic) has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the worst violence. IT is left out of pretty much every article.

The bias is reflected in most of these articles.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-20 01:29:35 Reply

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17 xml.html
Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isnâEUTMt hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That itâEUTMs part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

More in the link.

Thoughts anyone?

LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-20 07:41:22 Reply

At 2/20/13 01:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17 xml.html
Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
More in the link.

Thoughts anyone?

Send the children in (16-20) to do the inspections. Then you can pay them minimum wage and take the fat guv money under the table that's supposed to fund it.

Then confiscate everything retroactively after passing laws outlawing what you've discovered people have.

More money get.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-20 10:10:30 Reply

At 2/20/13 07:41 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
At 2/20/13 01:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17 xml.html
Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
More in the link.

Thoughts anyone?
Send the children in (16-20) to do the inspections. Then you can pay them minimum wage and take the fat guv money under the table that's supposed to fund it.

Then confiscate everything retroactively after passing laws outlawing what you've discovered people have.

More money get.

You understand the legality behind what the Democrats were pushing for here, right? That honestly is the kind of bullshit that makes leftleaner look credible.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-20 11:07:36 Reply

Department of Justice says "Assault Weapon" Ban unlikely to affect gun crime.
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
So, we have people who want police to go into homes without warrant and search and seize property. And we have the DoJ concluding that smart guns, magazine limits, and assault weapon bans are unlikely to affect gun violence.
As well as them concluding that most weapons used in violent crime are obtained in the city, regardless of restrictions on firearms there.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-20 17:11:52 Reply

At 2/20/13 01:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
More in the link.

Thoughts anyone?

(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the stateâEUTMs Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)

Luckily, it has been taken out of the bill. However, this means that the ban may pass. (But at least it's a state level bill where such a ban is Constitutionally more acceptable.). But hey...style/apearance over substance...that's the Democrat/Liberal position on this issue. ;)

As for the constitutionality of this...I'd like to see Camaro's take on this. On the surface it seems like it would be struck down by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as violating the 4th Amendment (search and seizure).


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

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-21 10:34:04 Reply

As for the constitutionality of this...I'd like to see Camaro's take on this. On the surface it seems like it would be struck down by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as violating the 4th Amendment (search and seizure).

I would too, let's hope he does.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-21 11:25:21 Reply

At 2/12/13 12:49 PM, TheMason wrote:
Fair enough. However, the sport does not lie in how you operate the action (ie: bolt, lever, or auto). Instead, with ethical hunting it involves knowing the land and the deer or other game on your land. The skill difference between hunting with a bolt action vs hunting with a semi-auto is really the least significant part of hunting sportsmanship.

In my opinion, the sport of hunting involves a certain amount of risk, patience, precision, and tracking. When using an Ak-47 two of those skills are immediately thrown out, precision and risk. That is if you fire one shot with a semi auto and miss, you can just instantly fire again, allowing less time for your target to escape. As for risk, well any dangerous animal that gets close to you can be shot at over and over until it's dead.

:If anything, it would make it more sporting because semi-autos are less accurate than bolt action rifles (this is why the majority of sniper rifles are bolt action and not semi-auto like the Barret or the Halo sniper rifle). Therefore, it requires the hunter to be a better shot.

So you the invention of semi automatic rifles required hunters and soldiers to be even more accurate with their shots? You've got it backwards dude.


In recent posts you were mocking me for putting forth the idea that high rates of fire and military ammo are the least capable of killing out there.

With the possible exception of Adam Lanza, the typical shooter does not know this. So they use 'common sense' and make the assumption that these type of rounds/guns will lead to more deaths. That's why I do not want to see internet ammo sales prohibited. A possible shooter goes on and see's 'mil-spec', 'military surplus', 'military' etc...they get that over HP or other more lethal ammo. Now if they go to the store they get this helpful store clerk who'll help them choose the most effective ammo for 'hunting'. So while they take time to plan out every other detail, since their logic does make sense in the absence of technical knowledge...they do not research it.

I don't have anything against buying ammo over the internet, nor am I in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles. Magazine size is my concern, but I'm pretty tiered of saying this over and over. So I'll just leave you with this thought.

Do you research on shootings that were a result of a semi-auto pistol versus a revolver. Both are handguns and are easy to conceal, however a semi-auto pistol has a much higher rate of fire, faster reload rate, and magazine capacities over twice the amount of revolvers. It seems the decreased reliability of a magazine doesn't seem to deter the majority of criminals from making it their gun of choice.

This comparative high rate of fire, fast reload rate, and large magazine capacity is an example of a deadly combination I'm talking about. Does it really need to be made more effective with magazines that can hold 20+ rounds of ammo?

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-21 14:57:25 Reply

At 2/21/13 11:25 AM, Saen wrote: In my opinion, the sport of hunting involves a certain amount of risk, patience, precision, and tracking. When using an Ak-47 two of those skills are immediately thrown out, precision and risk. That is if you fire one shot with a semi auto and miss, you can just instantly fire again, allowing less time for your target to escape. As for risk, well any dangerous animal that gets close to you can be shot at over and over until it's dead.

Saen...in the past you have admitted that you are not much of a hunter. You have a low opinion of it, as well as demonstrated a degree of ignorance on the topic. Now, engaged in a conversation with a hunter...why do you think your opinion is all that relevant? Not trying to be rude...but if hunting is just a thought experiment to you...just how valid is it compared to an actual hunter? Afterall you reveal one erroneous foundation to your opinion as well as one that is just plain silly:

* The rate of fire between a semi-auto is not all that different from a lever action or pump. I shoot skeet with a pump and it is just fine for hitting two moving targets (double barrel even better). Lever action is about the same as a pump. Yes a semi-auto is faster...but the limiting factor on rate of aimed fire is reacquring your target...which is the same irregardless of action. And I can operate a pump/level in about the time it takes to reacquire the target. Bolt...not enough to really make it more sporting. Furthermore...as I point out the semi-auto is less accurate than bolt or lever actions requiring more marksmanship. :) But in the end...not as significant a difference as you think.

* Risk: Dude...this is just silly. It reminds me of those guys who come on here talking about using swords and martial arts instead of guns for self-defense.

So you the invention of semi automatic rifles required hunters and soldiers to be even more accurate with their shots? You've got it backwards dude.

Again...step back and analyze the situation. You're talking to a guy who is a hunter and has military training. Of the two of us...who would be the more likely to have it backwards?

* the military does not use spray and pray...waste of ammo and soldiers simply could not carry enough rounds to sustain a firefight on full-auto.
* regardless of action...you still have to hit your target. Bolt actions are more accurate than autos (semi, full, or selective) because:
- The actions on autos fit more loosely which siphons energy away from the bullet.
- The cycle of firing a bullet, especially in autos that operate on the blowback principle, siphons energy from the bullet.
-- less energy means a trajectory that is less flat which, by definition, means less accurate
- The movement of the action as it cycles reduces accuracy

So...sorry Saen...you are only revealing your lack of knowledge and authority to speak on this subject.

... Magazine size is my concern, but I'm pretty tiered of saying this over and over. So I'll just leave you with this thought.

Just because you say something over and over does not make it right. You have failed to back up your argument with supporting facts...just suppositions.


Do you research on shootings that were a result of a semi-auto pistol versus a revolver. Both are handguns and are easy to conceal, however a semi-auto pistol has a much higher rate of fire, faster reload rate, and magazine capacities over twice the amount of revolvers. It seems the decreased reliability of a magazine doesn't seem to deter the majority of criminals from making it their gun of choice.

I'm very well versed in the research. When you look at the factors involving why a criminal chooses the gun he chooses you see the following trends:

* Criminals go for cheap and available over functionality and design features such as LCM (lg cap mags), reload/fire rates, accuracy, etc.
* When criminals do choose a gun based upon its characteristics...they favor larger calibur hanguns. Larger calibur handguns tend to be revolvers.
* Since criminals go for cheap and available...this is a market ruled by supply not the demand of the customers. In this case, the supply of guns follow popular trends with legitimate shooters which is subject to change. Consider:
- 1970s-1990: .357 and .38 revolvers each accounted for more than double the 9mm pistols made for the civilian market.
- 1990s: The market changed and people started buying semi-auto handguns.
* Crimes in which the criminal fired more than 10 shots: 2%...accounting for 5% of gunshot wounded. These mostly invovled pistols since 'assault rifles' are very rarely used in crime. Also, despite the fact that in only 2% of shoot-outs does the bad guy utilize the high rate of fire (how fast it shoots) and/or the high volume of fire (how many bullets are fired)...LCMs are involved in upto 26% of gun crimes. So this capability is largely superfulous and not utilized by crooks.

So once you actually look at the reasons why bad guys choose the gun they use...it is not about choice but market forces that are skewed towards supply not demand. Also, LCMs are not responsible for gun crimes. Nor is their impact, at 2% and 5%.


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) 2013-02-21 15:21:01 Reply

This comparative high rate of fire, fast reload rate, and large magazine capacity is an example of a deadly combination I'm talking about. Does it really need to be made more effective with magazines that can hold 20+ rounds of ammo?

Look...what you are saying is perfectly reasonable and logical. However, it is not observed as significant when you look at realworld data.

First of all...let's look at the feasibility of eliminating the supply of LCMs:
* There are millions of both guns and magazines in circulation. In order to make a ban on LCMs effective...you would have to make mandatory gun buy-backs.
* LCMs are not all that difficult to make, all you need is basic high school level metal shop skills. Even if you make guns that can only accept the 7-rd mags that are legal for sale...someone who wants a LCM for nefarious purposes will be able to easily make them.
* 20+ rd LCMs tend to be more for rifles...which are used in less than 0.1% of crime historically. Of the 7,500 guns seized by Chicago PD in 2012...only 300 (or 0.04%) were assault rifles. So you are focusing on something that, statistically speaking, will have ZERO impact.

But consider this hypothethical:
Let's assume that you can magically eliminate LCMs from the civilian and criminal gun supply.
* You are expending considerable public resources in attempting to address 2% of the criminal activity...and something that is more symptomatic rather than a causal factor.
* Since neither the LCM or the gun itself is the cause of the crime...will you stop the crime? According to the Penn State study I linked to in our last conversation on the last page of this topic, the incidence of 'assault pistols" decreased but this could not be linked to drops in crime since the crime rate was dropping in general. This suggests that the bad guys will just switch to other guns...which may actually be more powerfull (as revolvers tend to be in magnum caliburs) and result in more deaths (but to be fair...the 2% of times that a bad guy uses the LCM for its rate/volume of fire accounts for more people being wounded). In the case of mass killings, based upon what we've seen in places like Columbine and Aurora, the killers may move to explosives and even chemical weapons which in many cases can be cheaper and more accessible than guns.

In the end...you are not addressing a problem that exists in the realworld. Thus, if we dealt with your fear as a legitimate basis of public policy we will be shifting time, money, and resources from programs such as Tech Goes Home which will address both the economic and educational causes of crime.

Your focus on LCMs will not have any perceptible impact on crime. However, if we would spend the money and manpower we'd spend on trying to get rid of LCMs on something that will make a poor, underprivildeged child's home life and education better and result in him and his cohort at school choose college over gangs...now THAT would actually do something.


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) 2013-02-21 15:54:05 Reply

Okay...to all my friends who think gun control is a good idea...do you really want this guy as your spokesperson? I mean...shit...I'm stuck with Wayne LaPierre who I think may be going senile...you were good in the 1990s and have fought the good fight. But now is the time to consider retiring from it and letting a new generation take over the standard.

But enough of that...onto Biden:

* First of all he shows a cavalier attitude towards the safety of both his wife and potential perpetrator. While I do not disagree with his choice of a shotgun for the majority of home defense scenarios...unless you are retriving your child/ren...you NEVER want to either confront the home intruder or expose yourself to him. By telling Jill to go out on the balcony...he's telling her to make herself a target. This is stupid advice...bordering on negligence. Furthermore, by trying to confront the criminal you increase the chance for bloodshed. You also equalize the odds that the person getting hurt is you.

* Secondly, two qucks blasts? WTF, Joe? You're talking about a double-barrel shotgun. You fire off two blasts just willy-nilly you do two things:
-- show that you lack the responsibility to safely own guns (no wonder he thinks no one else should either), by firing blindly you risk hitting an innocent by-stander.
--show your complete and utter ignorance of tactics. You fire off two blasts in a double-barrel shotgun...and you're out of ammo! What are you going to do if that does not deter the bad guy?
--when you fire...you reveal your position and while standing on the balcony re-loading your shotgun...a bad guy hiding in the shrubs can now take a shot at you.

* Harder to aim? Harder to shoot? Again Joe...WTF? Do you enjoy setting back your side by displaying just how stupid your opinion is? How much you don't know about guns?
--How is the AR-15 more difficult to aim? Of the intermediate-powered rifles...the AR-15 is the most accurate. Furthermore, it is designed so that you can train someone who has never fired a gun to become proficient with minimal training.
--The AR-15 fires a .223 round whereas the 12guage fires either one slug that is .69" in diameter or 9 balls that are .30" diameter. Furthermore, the AR-15 uses the recoil to operate the action...reducing the 'kick' making it easier to shoot.

* Finally Joe, there are some cases where civilians can use 30 rounds.
--Varmit control for farmers/ranchers where you don't need a high powered round...and in the case of pack animals you could use the extra-rounds.
--Older homes with heavy wooden doors. Proper home defense calls for barricading yourself in a safe room and if necessary firing through a door. Older homes have heavy wooden doors, especially oak, that are capable of stopping pistol and shotgun projectiles. An AR and AK have the penetrating capability to shoot through these doors. After shooting 7 rounds...having more as back-up is a good thing in case there is more than one perp.
--Temporary Feral Cities like New Orleans post-Katrina or LA during the Rodney King riots. In these cases, you would want suppressing fire since you could be defending your property against looters and rioters.

Sorry Joe...but you make zero points that actually supports your policy position. Just affirmation that you are not qualified to make decisions regarding what is or is not 'common sense', 'reasonable', or 'rational' gun control policy.


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) 2013-02-21 15:56:10 Reply

Oops...link didn't post.


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

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-21 17:22:13 Reply

At 2/21/13 03:56 PM, TheMason wrote: Oops...link didn't post.

Why does anyone even want to limit magazines or "Assault Weapons"
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
If the Obama's DoJ is credible it won't affect gun violence like I linked before
This is about emotions not fact, and the pro gun control people only prove it with crap like this.
So lets cause some major spray and disarm ourselves at the same time. (Hope we don't hit a neighbor with our warming "blasts"