Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 60,394 Views
  • 1,682 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-18 08:19:02 Reply

Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords' husband, buys an AT-15 to 'prove a point' that the guns are easy to get.

He got a little criticism, but I don't think anyone really paid attention to his little gesture after the first day or two. Wonder if he'll take the next logical step by killing his wife with it, then shooting up a school to show how easy it is to commit mass homicide with the thing?

I hope not, but this move seemed to be more of a cry for attention than anything else.

Of course, the gun control lobby, with all their lies, half truths, and emotional, yet factually bankrupt propaganda don't like letting a good tragedy go to waste.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-18 12:42:18 Reply

At 3/18/13 08:19 AM, Korriken wrote: Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords' husband, buys an AT-15...

Wait...he bought a Russian anti-tank missile?

Cool.

How much? And where can I get one?


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

BBS Signature
wildfire4461
wildfire4461
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-19 21:37:36 Reply

Check out this story:
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA54FG9O0 %40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

He knew his rights, and had his lawyer on the speaker phone. The welfare worker and cops were forced to leave.


That's right I like guns and ponies. Problem cocksuckers?
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense. IMPEACH OBAMA.

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) 2013-03-21 09:12:52 Reply

At 3/19/13 09:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Check out this story:
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA54FG9O0 %40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

He knew his rights, and had his lawyer on the speaker phone. The welfare worker and cops were forced to leave.

This was so funny. Some people just need to be put down, and clearly the idiots who called this in are high on that list.


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) 2013-03-22 00:31:34 Reply

Senate leader doesn't think the AWB will pass. Didn't someone bet on it passing though?

KILLER80804
KILLER80804
  • Member since: Jun. 27, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 00:38:47 Reply

Most of the reason that there is so much gun murder is because no one seems to actually enforcing the laws already in place and refuse to include mental health in background checks. And then people claim that assault rifles are to blame, although rifles in general-not just assault rifles, but any type of rifle- only make up 3% of all gun crime. Hammers, cars, and medical accidents cause more death than guns, but they are not limited because collectively the benefits outweigh the losses. Guns prevent more crime than they assist, and could prevent far more. As well as all this, the 2nd amendment is the only real deterrent to corrupt or tyrannical government. Government tyranny and genocide are possible everywhere and must be deterred at a constant rate. It is always helpful to have an effective firearm handy because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. There are only free societies and oppressed societies.


BOOM!

BBS Signature
Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 52
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 01:58:05 Reply

I find it interesting that a number of politicians are so focused on Gun Control and so little on the nation's economy, this Link not only proves that politicians like Biden and Bloomberg don't care about the Nation's 2nd Amendment Rights, they also don't care about this nation's economy.

Why people like them are so focused on violating this nation's 2nd Amendment Rights when they "should" be focusing on the nation's economy???

The answer is simple, they don't care about this nation, they don't care about it's people, they don't even work for the American people by the "needs" of the American people, they are about "wants" and nothing more and nothing less but "wants". Why I say this? Because it's something that simply shouldn't be happening, but it is.

You know why? They place the "needs" for last and "wants" for first, one can't hope to end violence just to ban guns, as it will only make things worse criminals will still get there hands on them and further more will still get there hands on other weapons to commit crimes.

Politicians like Joseph Biden and Michael Bloomberg don't care about the nation's economy, they care only for themselves and if President Obama ever reads this, you, and I repeat, "YOU" might as well say that very thing what you feel you need to say, you know someone else is in control of things and you need to break away from that control, you are the leader of the United States of America and your job is very simple, work for American people by the "Needs" of the American people, not by the "wants" of these special interest groups, it's only going to make things worse!

Pecheneg
Pecheneg
  • Member since: Dec. 5, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 08:37:49 Reply

I heard about disarming laws and draw some conclusions. As russian I canâEUTMt judge your government, but I understand depth of that situation.
I was shocked to the innermost of heart when saw school massacre. Of course politicians want use that situation in their way. They want to rob liberty of people.
I know about problems with education and economy in your country. The next step to ruining US - deprive self-defense . In all ways we express sympathy .

[b]One real story about that[/b]

Not long ago in Sagra (vilage) was bloody battle. Common people have fight with pushers, profiteers and hirelings. They mostly used axes, clubs ,double-barreled guns and knives.
When 15 cars with gunmans arrived and war has begun. That war lasts 40 minutes. Bad guys used Ak 74/ ak47/ shotguns and pistols(PM,TT etc.). One man have died by headshot, some kind was injured. One bad guy lead poisoned. Corrupt cops want to lock Victor Gorodilov, because he give a rebuff with shotgun ([b]self-defense in Russia punishable[/b]) to some of attackers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZf_SpIRVmc
I hope you take notice that gangster always have combat weapons meanwhile common people canâEUTMt own normal weapon. Of course you can receive weapon license but in Russia it much harder(bureaucracy) and you can buy some hunting gun with too low reload speed, capacity.
Don't let politicians disarming you! If you lose your weapon, you lose your liberty.

wildfire4461
wildfire4461
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 10:18:02 Reply

At 3/22/13 12:31 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Senate leader doesn't think the AWB will pass. Didn't someone bet on it passing though?

Last I heard it already failed.


That's right I like guns and ponies. Problem cocksuckers?
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense. IMPEACH OBAMA.

BBS Signature
EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 13:14:41 Reply

At 3/18/13 01:50 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: 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.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.

I always find the argument that people say about gun laws not working quaint. They're basically saying with it that they don't care about the public, and that freely selling certain types of firearms, or accessories, into as many hands as possible - regardless of how unhinged, or desperate they are - will somehow lead to less gun violence. All I see in that is a lot sales for the gun industry, with nothing being solved, but free national promotions for firearms sales after massacres happen.

BeProf
BeProf
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 15:28:42 Reply

At 3/22/13 01:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.

Except that McDonald v. Chicago established conclusively that the 14th Amendment specifically prevents cities and states from restricting the individual 2nd Amendment right (as established in District of Columbia v. Heller.)

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 17:40:16 Reply

At 3/22/13 01:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.

Yes...but there has to be a demonstrable threat to public safety by unusual and uncommon weapons.

So far, the gun-control crowd has yet to show where assault weapons pose a clear and present danger/threat to public safety.


I always find the argument that people say about gun laws not working quaint. They're basically saying with it that they don't care about the public, and that freely selling certain types of firearms, or accessories, into as many hands as possible - regardless of how unhinged, or desperate they are - will somehow lead to less gun violence. All I see in that is a lot sales for the gun industry, with nothing being solved, but free national promotions for firearms sales after massacres happen.

Actually...studies time and time again show that concealed carry leads to a drop in crime.

Also once you get past the descriptive stats and start doing in-depth statistical analysis...the correlation between guns and gun crime shows no causal relationship.

Furthermore, the gun-control crowd use these incidents to push new gun control laws. These laws (advertised as 'common sense' or 'reasonable') are not going to be effective since they do not address the causes of gun crime nor do they address the guns actually being used in crime since military style rifles account for less than 1% of guns used to commit crimes or result in death.

Finally, these proposals are counterproductive since they take money, manpower, and attention from solve the economic and educational problems that lead to gangs being a viable lifestyle option.


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) 2013-03-22 17:46:32 Reply

At 3/22/13 03:28 PM, BeProf wrote: Except that McDonald v. Chicago established conclusively that the 14th Amendment specifically prevents cities and states from restricting the individual 2nd Amendment right (as established in District of Columbia v. Heller.)

Yes...but what was at issue in McDonald v. Chicago was Chicago's registration laws. It also expanded Heller to apply to the states (since DC is not a state). However, it also reaffirmed that the government can restrict types of firearms.


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

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 19:17:05 Reply

At 3/22/13 01:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.

I wonder if people would apply this to freedom of speech, and the banning of say, pronouns, because after all, you can still have your words, and nouns do the job just as well.

I always find the argument that people say about gun laws not working quaint. They're basically saying with it that they don't care about the public, and that freely selling certain types of firearms, or accessories, into as many hands as possible - regardless of how unhinged, or desperate they are - will somehow lead to less gun violence. All I see in that is a lot sales for the gun industry, with nothing being solved, but free national promotions for firearms sales after massacres happen.

Here's where the problem comes. The gun control crowd focuses solely on gun violence. They don't give two shits that violent crimes have been consistently dropping, and that no country that has banned them has affected the overall rate in a positive manner that wouldn't already be consistent with current trends.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 20:03:07 Reply

Ever hear of a gunfight at a shooting range? No? Ever hear of a gunfight in a school? Yes?

More people with gun make a place safer.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 20:37:23 Reply

At 3/22/13 08:03 PM, Dimitrilium wrote: Ever hear of a gunfight at a shooting range? No? Ever hear of a gunfight in a school? Yes?

I don't really hear about many gunfights at school, mostly mass shootings cause the people who obey the law don't have guns.

More people with gun make a place safer.
Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-22 22:41:07 Reply

Let me rephrase that with "any violent crime".

When someone is the only one with gun, he feel strong and feel he can get away with anything. When everyone have gun, he just feel average and know the risk of being shot is very real if he act stupid.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-23 03:03:57 Reply

At 3/22/13 03:28 PM, BeProf wrote:
At 3/22/13 01:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.
Except that McDonald v. Chicago established conclusively that the 14th Amendment specifically prevents cities and states from restricting the individual 2nd Amendment right (as established in District of Columbia v. Heller.)

That's true. It's why I said "As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons."

I know that the gun community often confuses "restrict" and "regulations" with "taking away their 2nd amendment rights", but that is often an excuse to cry wolf to avoid taking responsibility in regulating their own addiction.

At 3/22/13 05:40 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 3/22/13 01:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.
Yes...but there has to be a demonstrable threat to public safety by unusual and uncommon weapons.

So far, the gun-control crowd has yet to show where assault weapons pose a clear and present danger/threat to public safety.

Haven't they? Or, do you just ignore it? I say that anyone who can become a one man army, capable of killing dozens of people in mere minutes, in surprise attacks, in very public areas, are on on par to any terrorist you find in the world. I mean, we make buying such firearms, and accessories, easy to do in this country. And what reason do people have to purchase these firearms, which are very comparable to ones you find on the battlefield, and continue to evolve in that direction, strangling the line that was drawn over fully-automated machine guns?There is no reason, other than desire to own, and other less desirable human traits. Certainly it's not about defense. So these types types of firearms, and accessories, are easily available to anyone, including the wrong hands.

I always find the argument that people say about gun laws not working quaint. They're basically saying with it that they don't care about the public, and that freely selling certain types of firearms, or accessories, into as many hands as possible - regardless of how unhinged, or desperate they are - will somehow lead to less gun violence. All I see in that is a lot sales for the gun industry, with nothing being solved, but free national promotions for firearms sales after massacres happen.
Actually...studies time and time again show that concealed carry leads to a drop in crime.

Also once you get past the descriptive stats and start doing in-depth statistical analysis...the correlation between guns and gun crime shows no causal relationship.

Furthermore, the gun-control crowd use these incidents to push new gun control laws. These laws (advertised as 'common sense' or 'reasonable') are not going to be effective since they do not address the causes of gun crime nor do they address the guns actually being used in crime since military style rifles account for less than 1% of guns used to commit crimes or result in death.

Finally, these proposals are counterproductive since they take money, manpower, and attention from solve the economic and educational problems that lead to gangs being a viable lifestyle option.

There's a lot of studies, mostly funded by the very industry that benefits from their findings. The NRA saw to that with the laws they lobbied in congress for in the beginning of this century, ones that made it illegal for any taxpayer money to fund gun violence studies.

Let me bring up a few other points, which are not often pointed out by the gun community - They have a long list of cherry picked data they don't like to stray far from, after all:

Our laws over machine guns (fully automatics), or other extremely illegal, or hard to buy, arms, have done pretty well up to this point.

The whole CC thing about it lowering crime in this country is a myth. Lower crime rates have been happening since the mid 80 to 90's, across the country. This time was also marked by the original Assault weapon ban, and other gun control laws. Personally, I attribute the decline to the rise of more laws, more police, and the biggest prison systems in the world (China comes in 2nd, and they have a billion more people than us).

This leads to my next point: The understanding of gun violence in this country is a joke, made worse with the propaganda from groups like the NRA. Gun violence in this country has a lot to do with drugs, race, and inequality. There might be a few other things, but that pretty much covers it. Back in the 60's the end of disaggregation led to the decline of black businesses, and higher unemployment for them - they were often looked upon as inferior to white employees, and banks would often decline blacks for loans, or charge them higher rates on them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what poor groups turn to in order to survive. You would think people have learned something from prohibition time, with all the criminal activity it created. But no, and so we got the outlawing of drugs, and rise of criminal activity from it. Gun violence rose in the 60's to the 80's. At it's height, 30,000 people died yearly from it, mostly from inner city gangs. It began to decline from the 80's onward, as law enforcement became more aggressive in tackling it leading to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

The NRA use to believe in regulating firearms, but that changed during that period of time. Before that time period, the 2nd amendment was rarely used as an argument against gun control. It's why no one batted an eye over machine guns, and other excessive arms, being made illegal to purchase. And everyone knew that minorities in inner cities were killing each other off. I'll let you draw your own conclusion on what I am implying.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-23 05:43:27 Reply

A shotgun can easily do more damage then the reskinned hunting rifles you so dearly fear. These shotguns are the same ones Biden told us to fire into the night randomly.

"Assault Weapons" aren't similar to the guns found in the battle field other than the round they fire. They are hunting/sports rifles. the AR-15 isn't even powerful enough to ethically kill mid-large sized game

You attribute a decrease in already illegal crime from an increase in laws? what? Yeah, having an entire family in the police force/corrections career I can tell you criminals don't obey the law.

You go on about things we've covered extensively and already dismantled including what I'm bringing up now.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-23 12:01:54 Reply

At 3/23/13 03:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:
At 3/22/13 05:40 PM, TheMason wrote: So far, the gun-control crowd has yet to show where assault weapons pose a clear and present danger/threat to public safety.
Haven't they? Or, do you just ignore it? I say that anyone who can become a one man army, capable of killing dozens of people in mere minutes, in surprise attacks, in very public areas, are on on par to any terrorist you find in the world. I mean, we make buying such firearms, and accessories, easy to do in this country. And what reason do people have to purchase these firearms, which are very comparable to ones you find on the battlefield, and continue to evolve in that direction, strangling the line that was drawn over fully-automated machine guns?There is no reason, other than desire to own, and other less desirable human traits. Certainly it's not about defense. So these types types of firearms, and accessories, are easily available to anyone, including the wrong hands.

They have articulated an argumentâEU¦yes. However, it is not all that valid of an argument.
LetâEUTMs start with the underlying argument that these are âEU~battlefieldâEUTM firearms. The implication is that military weapons are uncommonly lethal killing machines. A common refrain is that these are firearms specifically designed to effectively kill humans; something that is not true of hunting or self-defense firearms. The reality is this argument is false and have things reversed.

According to international law, specifically the Hague Convention of 1899, combatants are not allowed to use projectiles (bullets) that âEUoeâEU¦bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.âEU[1] The convention specifically attributes this to the principles of the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg which stated that the goal of war was to âEUoeâEU¦weaken the military forges of the enemyâEU¦âEU and that military firearms should not make âEUoeâEU¦death inevitableâEU. [2]

This means that of all the different firearm typesâEU¦military firearms are the only ones specifically designed to minimize their lethality.

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

You also make the argument that these firearms make an individual a âEU~one man armyâEUTM with the capability of âEU~killing dozens of people in mere minutesâEUTM.

I am a servicemember, and have been trained on these firearms by the Air Force and Army. I am a hunter, and shot competitively in college. Recently IâEUTMve begun re-loading which has really increased my knowledge of ballistics. Finally, I am a political scientist with a graduate degree and have spent much of my adult life studying this issue.

From my experience, you (as well as others who share your opinion) overestimate what these firearms are capable of. The caliber of ammo used by Adam Lanza in Newtown is not that effective at killing. Remember, most of his victims were small children who are exceptionally susceptible to trauma. He also had to hit his victims multiple times, according to the Medical Examiner he hit most of them 6-11 times. Conversely, Cho at Virginia Tech fired about 100 rounds, hitting many of his victims only 1-2 times. He killed 33 and injured 17. He did this with a 9mm and a .22. The difference is he did not use rapid fire and he used ammo specifically designed to kill rather than the military ammo Lanza most likely used.

Then I thought I should look into the trends and not on anecdotal examples. So I used the time line Think Progress [3]recently published as well as the list created by Wikipedia. [4] My findings (since 1984):

HANDGUNS
Handguns have been used in 83% of spree shootings. In 49% of spree shootings the shooter choose to only use a handgun. In shootings where only a handguns was used, the average kill rate was 12 deaths per event. On average 8 people were injured in these types of shootings. In all, handgun only spree shootings are responsible for 185 deaths and 134 injuries.

SHOTGUNS
There were no shotgun only incidents. I did not have the time to find and dig through Law Enforcement and Medical Examiner reports in the number of shootings where a shooter used more than one type of gun. This is one limitation of this quick and dirty study.

RIFLES
Rifles have been used in 34% of spree shootings. In 14% of spree shootings they were the only firearm used. In these latter shootings the average kill rate was 9 deaths per event. The average number of wounded was 12. In all rifle only spree shootings are responsible for 49 deaths and 61 injuries.

Several of these spree shooters selected rifles that fired 9mm or .45 acp handgun ammo which is available in a greater variety of types that are more lethal than those available to AR-15 and AK-47 shooters. This may skew the results towards what is seen handgun sprees. A more robust study that includes an analysis of calibers used in spree shootings as well as increasing the dataset to parse out how many were killed/injured by each type of firearm in the spree shootings that involved multiple firearm types.

It is also worth noting that before the Newtown Shooting, the number of deaths incurred by rifle only sprees only averaged 6. The Lanza shooting may be an outlier because he choose a target exceptionally susceptible to trauma and he may not have utilized spray & pray shooting instead opting for the more effective stalking and aiming at his victims.

[cont]


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) 2013-03-23 12:05:25 Reply

CONCLUSION
This study is not the most rigorous. I would of course clean it up for submission to a scientific journal, but for NG I think it is informative. The results show that military style firearms such as the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza are not the typical gun selected by spree shooters. This is in-line with findings from the Census Bureau, Chicago Police Department, and academics on firearm crime in particular. According to the Census of the 31,059 murders committed by firearms (the types of which were reported/identified) in âEUTM00, âEUTM05, âEUTM08, and âEUTM09: 89% were committed by handguns, 5% by rifles, and 6% by shotguns. [5] In 2012, of the 7,500 firearms confiscated by the Chicago Police Department only 300 (or 4%) were assault rifles. This was 9x the number confiscated by NYPD and 3x what the LAPD confiscated. [6] Finally, a University of Pennsylvania study found that the 1994 AWB did not have an impact on reducing the frequency of military style assault rifles in crime because these firearms were rarely used in crime before the ban. The only area that the 1994 AWB was marginally effective in was reducing crime committed with large capacity magazines (LCMs) for handguns. However, this effect was lessened by several factors: 1) Most exchanges of gun fire only used about 3 shots, 2) the law did not confiscate magazines already in private hands, 3) the law did not prohibit the sale of LCMs that had already been manufactured, 3a) LCMs are not serially controlled making proving the date of manufacture difficult, and 4) the influx of new LCMs since 2004 would make future bans even less effective. [7]
My findings are in keeping with what is understood by government and academic sources: that rifles (inclusive of assault rifles) are not commonly used in crime. In the case of spree shootings, the criminal is more likely to choose an assault rifle more than the common street criminal. However, their use does not make the act of spree shooting more lethal. Considering that military ammo is, by international law, designed to be less than lethal and high rates of fire mean less accuracy and thus less people hit; assault weapons may give victims of spree shooters a higher chance of survival.

Actually...studies time and time again show that concealed carry leads to a drop in crime.

Also once you get past the descriptive stats and start doing in-depth statistical analysis...the correlation between guns and gun crime shows no causal relationship.

Furthermore, the gun-control crowd use these incidents to push new gun control laws. These laws (advertised as 'common sense' or 'reasonable') are not going to be effective since they do not address the causes of gun crime nor do they address the guns actually being used in crime since military style rifles account for less than 1% of guns used to commit crimes or result in death.

Finally, these proposals are counterproductive since they take money, manpower, and attention from solve the economic and educational problems that lead to gangs being a viable lifestyle option.
There's a lot of studies, mostly funded by the very industry that benefits from their findings. The NRA saw to that with the laws they lobbied in congress for in the beginning of this century, ones that made it illegal for any taxpayer money to fund gun violence studies.

What the law did was take this away from the CDC. Taxpayer money still goes to these studies, just through the National Science Foundation. The difference is the money goes to political scientists, economists, and criminologists. The researchers at the CDC are public health scientists and focused on hard science research methodologies and lack the depth of statistical research methodology that a social scientist possesses.


Let me bring up a few other points, which are not often pointed out by the gun community - They have a long list of cherry picked data they don't like to stray far from, after all:

OkayâEU¦this will be fun. :)


Our laws over machine guns (fully automatics), or other extremely illegal, or hard to buy, arms, have done pretty well up to this point.

I do not stray away from this at all. In factâEU¦it kind of proves my point. The law was only effective at reducing crime from one firearm: the M1928 (AKA: Tommy Gun). This was the first submachine gun, it is a very heavy gun that fires .45 acp pistol rounds. The heaviness of the gun combined with the lower recoil of using a pistol round makes this a gun that can be reasonably controlled at a high rate of fire. Also, it could be ordered through the mail (ie: SearâEUTMs Catalogue).
See, a fast rate of fire is not necessarily a good thing for the shooter. You run out of ammo. Also, in the case of assault rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47sâEU¦you only have a chance of hitting someone during the first three rounds when firing at full-auto. The rest will be fired relatively harmlessly into the air or ceiling.

These guns are no longer conducive to the commission of crime. This is one reason why criminals, who have a choice between assault rifle clone (and often âEU~military gradeâEUTM firearms) choose either a handgun or shotgun. They are inaccurate when firing full-auto, hard to conceal, and overall ineffective.

So sureâEU¦making guns that are not conducive to crime harder to get will appear effective at keeping these weapons from being used in crime!


The whole CC thing about it lowering crime in this country is a myth. Lower crime rates have been happening since the mid 80 to 90's, across the country. This time was also marked by the original Assault weapon ban, and other gun control laws. Personally, I attribute the decline to the rise of more laws, more police, and the biggest prison systems in the world (China comes in 2nd, and they have a billion more people than us).

UmâEU¦no.

* Gary Kleck (a PhD criminologist out of Florida, self-described liberal Democrat, and non-NRA member) found that states with CCW (and other loose laws) saw a higher rate of decrease in crime across the board than the national average and those states with more strict gun control laws.

* Kleck (and you yourself) found that the decrease in the crime rate preceeded the gun controls of the 1990s. These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisons.

* The AWB sunset in 2004, and the rate of murder (according to the FBI) has continued its steep decline. [8]

* Not to mention the U of Pa study (sourced previously) that shows only a marginal impact of the AWB on gun crimeâEU¦and this only in relation to a specific type of high capacity magazine.


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) 2013-03-23 12:12:53 Reply


This leads to my next point: The understanding of gun violence in this country is a joke, made worse with the propaganda from groups like the NRA. Gun violence in this country has a lot to do with drugs, race, and inequality. ...

At this point, you need to realize that you are guilty of the âEU~strawman fallacyâEUTM. I am not a member of the NRA. My opinion on this matter is informed by my military training, and experience with firearms on the civilian side, and my academic background. So pleaseâEU¦argue against what I am sayingâEU¦not the NRA.

That saidâEU¦

Guess what? I agree with much you just said. The problem is your conclusion is incorrect. The reduction in crime has been shown by multiple academic studies at major Universities (not the NRA) that show there is no causal relationship between strict gun control laws and any reduction in crime. There is a very slight negative relationship (ie: as one variable goes up the other goes down) between guns and crime (ie: more legal guns, less crime).

What the causes of crime are:
* Economic factors.
* Educational factors.
* A high degree of ethnic and linguistic stratificationâEU¦especially where there are one or more minorities that are treated as second class citizens with reduced economic and educational opportunities.

If you read through what I have posted here (and including my original post to you) youâEUTMll see that the core of my argument is two-fold:

A) Assault weapons are rarely used in crime, and when used they do not have the effect articulated by fear-mongering gun control advocates.

B) Further gun control measures will funnel money, manpower, and other resources into law enforcement solutions to gun crimesâEU¦which will only be marginally more effective. Instead, our efforts should be aimed at solving the social, economic, and educational problems that spawn inequality of education and economic opportunity (which makes drugs and gangs a viable lifestyle/career choice).

You, gun control politicians, ands activists are nibbling around the margins of the problem talking about saving either one life or hundreds. IâEUTMm talking about the potential to save thousands.


The NRA use to believe in regulating firearms, but that changed during that period of time. Before that time period, the 2nd amendment was rarely used as an argument against gun control. It's why no one batted an eye over machine guns, and other excessive arms, being made illegal to purchase. And everyone knew that minorities in inner cities were killing each other off. I'll let you draw your own conclusion on what I am implying.

Umm...no. I've been around about 40 years, and the 2nd amendment argument has been around for all four decades of my life.

But speaking as a gun owner, I do not want regulation that is judged to be 'common sense', 'reasonable', or 'logical' by people who are ignorant of firearms or even the nature of gun crime in this country. Because once you get into the data their common sense, reason, and logic dissolve. Things like assault rifles and high capacity magazines become targets which would only marginally effect gun crime.

What it comes down to is that many on your side of this issue lack the moral courage to tackle the social issues surrounding gun crime. Gun control is easy from a political perspective and requires no real courage to address.

So we get calls for 'common sense', 'reasonable', and 'logical' laws that would lack one thing: effectiveness.


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) 2013-03-23 15:11:13 Reply

@ EdyKel

Also, you really do not want to use prisons as reason for a decrease in crime. Prisons are actually part of the problem. See you send someone to jail for something nonviolent such as prostitution, shoplifting, or a pot charge you give them a permanent record that makes it difficult for them to find suitable employment with a criminal record.

But hey at least they get skills inside the slammer right? One of the things we've found is that inmates learn important skills like networking and how to committ more serious crimes. So when they leave prison they've effectively graduated from Crime U. So when their record keeps them from becoming productive citizens...they can graduate to more serious crimes.

This too needs to be reformed if we want to make substantive gains in terms of preventing violent crime.


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

BBS Signature
EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-23 19:47:07 Reply

At 3/23/13 05:43 AM, Ceratisa wrote: A shotgun can easily do more damage then the reskinned hunting rifles you so dearly fear. These shotguns are the same ones Biden told us to fire into the night randomly.

"Assault Weapons" aren't similar to the guns found in the battle field other than the round they fire. They are hunting/sports rifles. the AR-15 isn't even powerful enough to ethically kill mid-large sized game

You attribute a decrease in already illegal crime from an increase in laws? what? Yeah, having an entire family in the police force/corrections career I can tell you criminals don't obey the law.

You go on about things we've covered extensively and already dismantled including what I'm bringing up now.

Do I really need to point out the difference between a shotgun and a rifle to you?

If it's just over certain cosmetic features, as they say, then the gun community shouldn't have to spend millions trying to kill the legislature over it. Or send millions of drones defending it across the web. Or blaming video games and movies for the recent massacres. As a gun nut friend of mine once said a few years back about the original Assault weapon ban " It was annoying, but harmless" - though now he is pretty convinced that because there is a black communist, Nazi in the white house, planning to to destroy the American way of life as we know it, that keeping those features are much more important to him now( he's a gun dealer).

As to the laws... Let me put it this way: You don't see people being gun down by machine guns, or being blown up by mortars. What we do see more often now, is these suicide missions by individuals who can get off several rounds in minutes without changing magazines, because they are being sold like candy across the country. Making them harder to purchase is a good step.

And the whole "criminal will still be able to get a hold of them" is a stupid circular argument. It's a sales pitch. That's all it it is. You see, you increase your chance of encountering those bad guys with those types of firearms by freely allowing them to buy them legally on the market. If they are illegal, that decreases your chance of encountering them, because you can bet that the price of those firearms, and risk of capture in obtaining them, will go up. If they went through all that, they are certainly not going to hold you up, or do some other petty crime with them. No, they'll be in some major crime organization or something, and that's why police will always need a little extra firepower. Of course, I never could figure out the reason why some people in law enforcement want to increase their chances of being on the other end those firearms, unless they live for that moment. Anyways, this is all common sense.

thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-23 21:50:57 Reply

Edykel It is not common sense to spend millions on making people use 7 round mags as opposed to 10 or 10 round mags as opposed to 30. Slowing people down 1 second isn't going to protect anyone sadly.

It is not common sense to spend millions restricting the sale of rifles with a pistol grip because it really does not matter.

It is not common sense to push a failed gun control policy from the 1990's or to push the same basic idea on steroids.

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

The new penalties for committing minor crimes that can easily be done by accident with guns in these assault weapons bans are very serious. Mass shooters aren't going to face these penalties and the penalties they face should already keep them locked up forever.

The laws are bullshit. How is some guy going to know if his semi auto rifle is an assault weapon because it has a 1cm nub of metal on the barrel that he frankly has no clue about. How does making that 1cm nub (bayonet lug) illegal and a felony to have on a rifle save anybody? All i see it doing is getting clueless people arrested.

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

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


BBS Signature
Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-23 22:19:42 Reply

Edykel, are you trolling or does your common sense just lack common sense? I live in Canada where firearm are controlled and getting some illegal weapon is insanely easy, it's harder to buy hunting weapon legally.

And don't you forget crazy does not mean dumbass, they know how to get what they want.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 00:08:22 Reply

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, and it's hopefully been regurgitated countless times already, but here are some statistics regarding the gun sale spike since 2005 and violent crime. I'll post the relevant text from the article here to make quotation easier. I realize how passionate the gun debate can become, but we really should be scientific about this in order to save lives:

Data from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation show that America has been on a firearms buying spree since the end of 2005. Meanwhile, the FBI released preliminary 2009 crime data indicating that violent crime has been dropping at an accelerating rate since the end of 2006.

The FBI reports the number of background checks, by month, requested for potential firearms purchases through licensed dealers. When a prospective buyer wants to buy a gun, he fills out a form which the dealer submits to law enforcement. If approved, the sale proceeds. This system is called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS for short.

Between November 2005 and October 2009, nearly every monthâEUTMs requests were higher than the year before. (For example, there were 12.4% more NICS requests in September 2009 than in September 2008.) The sole exception was December 2007, which saw 1.9% fewer requests than December 2006. On an annual basis, each yearâEUTMs total saw double-digit growth over the previous year beginning in 2006. NICS data mirror the estimated sales data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which also show double-digit growth beginning in 2006. (Not all background checks result in one gun being purchased.)

Chart A shows that after gun sales attained record growth in 2006, violent crime rates began to fall in 2007. As gun sales continued to register records each following year, violent crime rates decreased at an accelerating rate.

Chart B shows that, like overall violent crime, after gun sales began to peak in 2006, the murder rate declined at an accelerating pace beginning in 2007, going from -0.7% to -3.9% in 2008, to -7.2% in 2009.

---
I am just curious about what anti-gun people think about this.

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 04:05:55 Reply

At 3/23/13 12:01 PM, TheMason wrote:

@TheMason

I get a little annoyed when people shove a wall of stats at me. I automatically distrust it. I have to ask my self where did those stats come from, who funded them, and most importantly " what are they trying to hide and how are they trying to manipulate those stats to strengthen their argument/s?

I'm sure you are up to date with all the data, and I assume that much of it is fairly accurate. But I learned along time ago that what people may present may not reflect reality, even if they seem to have a lot of facts to support the points they are trying to make. I know as heck that you lack objectiveness in your views on firearms. That's a given. I don't mind the stereotypes, or your use of "you people", all that does is reconfirms my views about you, and your data.

You know, through my own research, I found it exceedingly hard to find information relating to all this. You know, simple information on why gun violence was going down. The arguments offered made no sense, especially more firearms and loose gun laws as a reason for it's decline. That's just silly. It goes against logic, and human nature. No, I had to track it down by looking up police records and seeing to tied to gang violence, and other factors, which seemed much more reasonable and having nothing to do with gun laws or lack of gun laws. I found the whole gun issue to be a very sensitive subject, with a lot gun advocates refusing to accept alternative reason than the ones they have been fed. I mean, it's hard to convince people when they think more firearms deter deters crime, when it doesn't deter people who lives revolve around gun violence. And really, who thinks that having a a firearm like an AR-15 is going to deter someone with another one peppering you from a safe distance. C'mon, common sense here.

Oh, and you might want to look for other reasons for the decrease in gun violence. Nothing makes your research more moot than ignoring other possibilities, or other data, you might feel has no bearing on your conclusion. But that refusal, or self inflected ignorance, only makes you sound like a pompous ass. I don't mind giving you the same treatment. And don't try to compound your information together, alright? That just irritates me. And it's incredibly dishonest. I'm mean, like this one: "These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisons" A few things that automatically cross my mind is that every state is different. They don't all have the same economic problems, or the same population density - and all the problems that go along with them. And Gary Kleck was notorious for using surveys as a basis for his research. Basing it on small sample from willing participants, and hoping they understand the wording of those surveys, and don't exaggerate their responses, is one of the biggest problems to that type of research based study.

And what does being a Democrat have to do with his research? I mean, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry, use to be Democrats back in the 80s and 90's, before they change parties - and we all know that southern pride lives strongly within them. More recently, I believe that 4 conservative Democrats, who live in rural states that are partial to other firearms, voted against some of the recent gun control bills.

:A common refrain is that these are firearms specifically designed to effectively kill humans; something that is not true of hunting or self-defense firearms. The reality is this argument is false and have things reversed.

I'm well aware of that, but the gun community often defends those features that straddle the line. There is no reason for 100, 30, or 15 clip mags, other than convenience, on the market. There's no reason to dress them up in military style other than taste and implication. There's no reason to include features you find from the battlefield on domestic firearms. But all that is driven by the other side of the recreational spectrum you failed to mention, competition and collecting of firearms. This is what is really driving the industry over the last decade, and more alarmingly, producing a deep divide over public safety due to this unhealthy obsession with firearms.

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

I'm sure you know what the National Firearm Act is, and when and why it came about. I've always considered it as a defining line for the regulations of firearms in this country, but it needs updating from time to time, as businesses try to get around it by finding loopholes, and producing that a product that has similar results of a past military style firearm that became well regulated under that act - not in just one aspect but many. Because I lack the technical knowledge.

One last thing on this point. I'm much worse than a bleeding heart liberal on gun control, I'm a moderate. I don't believe in getting rid of firearms in this country, just trimming it on occasions. So, your usual heavy waited arguments on one side won't work with me. And you can stop showing indignation and sensitivity to the words like "military" and "battlefield". I know you think they give the wrong impression, but I can't help that, because what are being offered on our market have no place in our society, not for hunting, or for self defense, but for battlefields.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 04:08:08 Reply

At 3/23/13 12:01 PM, TheMason wrote:

continued

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

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

The fact is, these types of firearms, and accessories, have been used in many recent massacres. I can only attribute this to two things: The end of the original assault weapon ban, which has led to a renewed interest and subsequently sales of these types of firearms, and accessories, into the public market place, making them much more common in such incidents. As competition goes, and the drive for profit, without the concern for civil lawsuits against them - thanks to the efforts of the NRA - they can produce these types of products at a cheaper price for the average person, regardless of their intention, or mental stability. And because of the inability of our legislature branch to take it serious, or the gun community to take responsibility, I'm expecting much worse massacres to come, and eventually, public outrage to the boiling point, leading to much stricter gun control laws that would make the current proposals look superfluous.

"At this point, you need to realize that you are guilty of the âEU~strawman fallacyâEUTM. I am not a member of the NRA. My opinion on this matter is informed by my military training, and experience with firearms on the civilian side, and my academic background. So pleaseâEU¦argue against what I am sayingâEU¦not the NRA."

Uhhh... No. You're not helping yourself by playing the victim here, like most of the gun advocates I come across love to do. I will apologize to you for grouping you with them, since you seem a little bit more grounded than them; but, frankly, your gut reaction to be on the defensive, your sensitivity to certain wordings, your lack of objectivity over the issue, and your pompous attitude, make me wonder if you truly deserve that apology. And the irony here, your blind to the very thing you doing to me, generalizing, and accusing me of things I don't believe in. So, don't play that game with me.

Iron-Claw
Iron-Claw
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 05:10:51 Reply

Face it: The only people who need a gun is because of compensating for shortcomings that are freakishly short in their comings whatever their comings may be that happen to be freakishly short. It's always a need for a weapon and people who need one live out in the middle of nowhere the overall danger is in themselves.

Why can't you just take up Martial Arts that you don't need a weapon to kill someone in self-defense mind you there's a difference. It's a lot less expensive to get martial arts lessons than it is to amass an arsenal of weapons far more expensive to amass an arsenal of weapons that most likely will not serve a constructive purpose.


Your Arrogance Will Be Your Undoing
Perfection Is An Illusion And Delusion Of Narcissists And Despots
It's Not Who You Were It's More In Who You Are And Who You Will Be

BBS Signature