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