Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 57,252 Views
  • 1,677 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 07:18:55 Reply

At 3/24/13 05:10 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: 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.

Actually we've already covered how a common thug savagely single handedly killed a martial arts master in a street fight. By the way a weapon is cheaper than lessons.

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 13:00:27 Reply

At 3/24/13 05:10 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Why can't you just take up Martial Arts

Do you think life is like the movies or something? I would love to find a Taekwondo black belt who could block a criminal's bullets with his roundhouse kick. The fact of the matter is, firearms are extremely convenient, reliable, and effective items for self-defense. Moreover, wielding one is a very strong deterrent against even the most sociopathic of aggressors.

Martial arts are for brawls and small skirmishes against unarmed assailants. Not only is it a poor option for people who lack the physical capability for such action (ie: the elderly), but when encountering an opponent who is armed, there is little to no chance of winning the fight without serious injury. This hardly even takes into account that firearms are ranged weapons.


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

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) 2013-03-24 13:18:41 Reply

At 3/24/13 04:05 AM, EdyKel wrote: I get a little annoyed when people shove a wall of stats at me. ...

Click on my links. The stats I presented come from sources such as government collected crime data, police reporting, and academic studies using scientific methods in their research. On this last one, I tend to look at studies from academic journals rather than something at a NRA, GOA, Handgun Control Inc, etc website.

Also, if you want scientific answers and to actually understand the problem in all of its complexity...you need to learn not to be annoyed by stats.

As for your point about 'funding'. This is getting a little conspiratorial. Yes, the Olin Foundation has funded research. But they are not as involved in the conducting of that research as you think. I've lived in that world, I know what I'm talking about. It takes 4yrs of undergrad and 5yrs of grad school to get a PhD in the relevant fields. Then you build a reputation that takes even more time to get the reputation to pull in those research grants. So as long as the researcher is employed by a university and not a company or organziation...you can trust it.


I'm sure you are up to date with all the data, and I assume that much of it is fairly accurate. ... 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.

BIAS
ME: Yes I have a bias on this issue. I will not deny this. However, there are two antidotes to bias: admitting it and knowledge. I let the data guide me. This is why I'm against the AWB in its entirety. However, I would go for a 7 round limit on handgun magazines. I would also be willing to accept legislation (especially on the state level) that requires more requirements than just age to buy a pistol. Make it where a person has to have a CCP in order to buy a handgun. This is where the data leads me.

YOU: First of all, you need to grow a thicker skin. I never said "you people". What I was speaking of was the arguments you specifically were making in the context of the larger arguments of the gun control crowd you echo. Furthermore, I do not stereotype; I'm discussing your ideas. The closest I get to stereotyping is when I bring up that in my experience, most pro-gun-control people are not shooters and do not have a realistic understanding of the capabilities of firearms.

You may want to do some introspection because reading through your post...time and time again you talk about data "making no sense" or going against "common sense" or being "illogical". You refer to a shooter friend of yours as a "gun nut", but how much do you know about firearms? Can you define the following terms and concepts?
Intermediate rounds
Magnum rounds
Full Metal Jacket
Jacketed Hollow Point
Hollow Point
Soft Lead Core
Muzzle Velocity
Barrel shroud
Grenade launcher (as sold to the civilian market)

You know, through my own research, ...

- The research is out there and it is not hard to find, if you attend college. Use the libraryâEUTMs websearch tools to find scholarly journals on the subject. If not in college, perhaps your local library has access to websearches such as Ebesco which will let you pull-up full-length articles. Also, do not look for a single, simple answer. This is a complex issue with many moving parts. You will not find a silver bullet that will make these things go away.

- Your bias is sneaking in here by dismissing the research as âEU~sillyâEUTM. In fact, it is logical and in line with human nature. See most criminals are out to make an easy score, they are not looking for trouble. So the greater the chance a potential victim will be armed and able to resist; the more likely the criminal will choose another target or not move into an area where more people have guns.

- As you know IâEUTMm a member of the gun community. That gangs and drugs are the reasons for the majority of gun violence is something that makes sense and is accepted. This is another piece of the puzzle. Things like CCP has an effect on crimeâEU¦however it will not reduce it to zero by itself. Same with drugs and gangs. Social programs that address why people choose âEU~thug lifeâEUTM over legal means of employment will most likely save thousands of lives per yearâEU¦but will not save every life.

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.

- UmâEU¦I do that. Scroll through my posts and youâEUTMll find that IâEUTMve been making the argument that gun violence is actually caused by the social, economic, and educational factors that lead to involvement in everything from petty crime to organized crime. I HAVE explored other possibilities.

- What does it matter if something irritates you, as long as it is within the norms of scientific inquiry? Let me demonstrate why when I say: These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisonsâEU¦it is acceptable.
* While every state is different, there are still population clusters that share the same basic problems and similar social make-up.
* Gangs and the drug trade operate trans-state boundaries. LA gangs such as the Bloods and Crips now operate in practically every state.
* You make comparisons between states that have very similar make-ups, or you just look at cities.
So yes, there are some methodological concerns, but cross-state studies are a norm in social science and perfectly acceptable and considered to be intellectually honest.

- KleckâEUTMs research adheres to scientific norms for the type of research question he was conducting. Defensive Gun Use is under reported because police do not track that data in a way that can be compiled across jurisdictions. Therefore, survey is an accepted way of conducting research. Furthermore, small sample size is a scientific norm not only in the social sciences, but the hard sciences as well. You can make accurate extrapolations from less than 1% of the population. Finally, all participants in any social scientific research project must be willing.


And what does being a Democrat have to do with his research?

My point was that Kleck does not fit the mold/stereotype you are trying to create. Furthermore, it also helps guage where his level of bias is on the subject. Just as if I ever publish on this topic I have to include a statement on my political beliefs, and connection to guns.


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) 2013-03-24 13:20:15 Reply

I'm well aware of that, but the gun community often defends those features that straddle the line.

- Yes, the utility of LCMs is limited. However, does limited utility mean that it should be restricted? Not necessarily, you have to prove that this capacity increases the weaponâEUTMs threat to public safety. At this point, that has not been proven. AR-15s and AK-47 and other military rifles, even with their LCMs, have not demonstrated a threat to public health. However, LCMs in handguns have some effect on public health. HereâEUTMs why:
* Rifles are difficult to conceal, putting a LCM whether a 30rd box mag or 100rd drum only makes this more difficult.
* Rifles are too heavy and unwieldy for the vast majority of criminal applications.
* The most common, and inexpensive ammo for military style rifles is incredibly ineffective at killing, while self-defense rounds for pistols and shotguns are devastating and roughly the same price.
* LCMs have reliability issues. This is why 100rd magazines are not issued to infantrymen. They tend to jam the gun, which is what happened in Aurora, Co.
* The average shoot-out only involves three shots fired from each side.
- In what way does having a gun that is military in appearance make it a threat to public safety? Furthermore, if this did make it more deadly or more effectivelyâEU¦why are they not used more in crime?


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 fail to mention this because that is not reality. The rise of the assault rifle on the battlefield is a move away from things such as killing power and accuracy. First of all, an assault rifle fires what is known as an intermediate round. This means that post WWII and Korea we moved away from high-powered rifle rounds towards something that was much smaller but still larger than a handgun round. This means that now we have bullets that are moving very fast, which means that they have practically no chance to flatten, expand, or fragment inside the body. Thus, these firearms are less likely to cause death. Secondly, automatic firearms loose accuracy compared to bolt, lever, and pump action firearms. Since the bolt moves, energy is transferred from the projectile (bullet) to operating the bolt. This means the bullet will drop more. Also, the movement of the bolt effects the trajectory of the bullet.

Finally, civilian firearms are quite often more accurate, reliable, with an overall better design than military rifles. That the opposite is true is an indication that you are largely ignorant of that which you speak of (please note I am simply saying you lack knowledgeâEU¦I am not calling you stupid). This is why sniper rifles are civilian hunting rifles (Barrett .50 calibers are very uncommon on the battlefield). As for range and speedâEU¦these are functions of the round and not the firearm.


I'm sure you know what the National Firearm Act is, and when and why it came about. âEU¦. Because I lack the technical knowledge.

UmmâEU¦no businesses are not trying to get around it. And yesâEU¦I know what it is, thatâEUTMs what I was referring to when I talked about the Tommy Gun.


âEU¦ I'm a moderate. âEU¦

IâEUTMm not being heavy handed or showing indignation. You lack the technical knowledge to really speak knowledgably on this subject. However, I have the technical, legal, and scientific knowledge to speak. So I am trying to educate you on this. You make the assertion that these weapons have no place in civilian hands. But what do you base that assertion on? How do you know that they are not suitable for hunting or self-defense?

You want to say that IâEUTMm being heavy handed, sensitive, or indignant. But when I say something I back it up with something concrete and verifiable.

You however, in saying: âEUoeâEU¦what are being offered on our market have no place in our society, not for hunting, or for self defense, but for battlefields.âEU are just repeating a mantra and offering no proof that this is valid statement other than assuming that the logic is self-evident. You do not address the following facts that argue against this prima fascia assumption:
* Ammo designed for the battlefield is, by international, of a type so that it does not make death inevitable. On the other hand, ammo designed for civilian use is most commonly of a type that makes death more likely and injuries more severe.
* Less people are killed when a spree shooter selects one of these weapons as their prime tool of slaughterâEU¦they are making their spree less effective.
* LCMs are notoriously unreliable. The AR-15 has been in service since the early 1960s, and they are still tinkering with the mag design to reduce jamming on the battlefield.
* These weapons are rarely used in crime, and even the one type of crime where they are somewhat common they neither are the most common choice nor are they responsible for the majority of deaths and serious injury.

At this point, all you are demonstrating is your own entrenched bias and self-inflicted ignorance rather than shining a light on what you perceive to be crippling bias and ignorance on my part.

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.

You give an appeal to emotion (another type of logical fallacy). Your answer does not address the following facts:
* The AR-15âEUTMs muzzle velocity is too fast for even expanding type ammo to be effective against human targets. The AK-47 hunting ammo that delivers hunting rifle lethality is too expensive for a spree-type shooting. Furthermore, the vast majority of spree shooters lack ballistic knowledge and make the false assumption that ammo designed for the military is capable of more harm than hunting or self-defense ammo.
* The faster a gun can shoot the less accurate it becomes. In fact as you fire full-auto or bump fireâEU¦the amount of recoil you generate creates dramatic muzzle rise. So the shooter ends up firing into the ceiling.
* LCMs have a higher than normal chance of jamming meaning that you have more chance of a guy armed with an AR-15 finding his rifle unusable during the attack giving the victims more time to flee or take him down.

So rather than repeat a false assumptionâEU¦why donâEUTMt you learn about what limitations and actually capabilities of these firearms?

(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) 2013-03-24 13:22:00 Reply

The fact is, these types of firearms, and accessories, have been used in many recent massacres. ...

- The end of the 1994 AWB has nothing to do with these weapons becoming used more frequently in massacres. There are two reasons that this is a false assumption:
* The 1994 AWB only restricted firearms that accepted LCM and had one or more features listed in the bill. Therefore, AR-15s and AK-47s were re-designed to be compliant with the law. Other firearms such as the Mini-14 were never effected. So the 1994 AWB effectively banned nothing. These firearms were still available to people between 1994 and 2003.
* The frequency of use of military style rifles have not increased significantly (if at all) since the expiration of the 1994 AWB.

- It would be an injustice to seek civil suits against a manufacturer for the actions of a customer who uses their product illegally. The responsibility is on the criminal, not the manufacturer.

- LetâEUTMs have a heart-to-heart about the gun community taking responsibility. I do not want there to be any more massacres. But I am troubled by the solutions offered by people like Senator Fienstein and supported by people like you. You admit to lacking technical knowledge about firearms. So how do you know what is common sense, reasonable, and logical?

Now let me say the message supporting the proposed ban comes across to me and other firearm aficionados: These firearms belong on the battlefield, where their only function is the taking of human life. Because of their military origin they are capable of inflicting maximum death in minimum time. They are also heavy/high powered, and their threat to public safety outweighs the limited utility they have to civilians.

Now, a person like me hears that shudders. I get how that would make sense to someone who does not shot, has never shot, and does not know much about guns. It is an assumption that is reinforced by what one sees on TV, in movies, and in video games. However, this does not make the argument factually correct. In fact, the argument suffers from the following factual errors:
* As I have demonstrated, handguns and rifles designed for the battlefield are actually designed to minimize suffering and give the wounded the best chance to live. Thereby making the military firearm the ONLY firearm NOT designed to kill!
* A high rate of fire is only used on the battlefield when you want the enemy to keep down so you can flank them. As I have said previously, IâEUTMm a member of the military. IâEUTMve fired these weapons on burst fire. With just a three round burst IâEUTMm wildly inaccurate (and IâEUTMve shot competitively so IâEUTMm a good shot). Faster rate of fire=/=greater death and injury!
* Assault rifles do not fire high powered rounds. They fire a round that is small by hunting standards. The bullets also tend to be lighter than handgun rounds. In the end, the round fired by assault rifles are weaker than hunting rifles or self-defense handguns.
* These firearms are only rarely used in crime, by most estimates only accounting for 1% of gun crimes in total. The only type of crime, spree shooting, where they are somewhat common is a rare crime in and of itself. And even then, they are not used near as often as handguns. Nor do they cause the carnage and mass death that the argument supporting their ban implies.
* In other cultures we see gun control as being effective in making mass killers switch to other types of weapons. In those cultures, we see the killer opting for bladed or bludgeoning weapons. However, in the US there is also a trend for these killers to employ homemade explosives and even chemical weapons. So we may end up taking the guns out of their handsâEU¦only to have them switch to more lethal modes of slaughter.

So in the end, those of us who know about these firearms and how they are used see the argument that is touted as common sense, reasonable, and logical as lacking grounding in solid fact. These are not things that are subjective either. These are supported by either hard sciences (in the case of ballistics and the power of the round) or social science (in the case of the infrequency of which they are used in crime).

So we see an argument that is irrational because it appears to be based on emotion and articulated by people who are ignorant of what these firearms do and what they are capable of. What people like me want to see is legislation that will work and be effectiveâEU¦not just fill an emotional need to do something.


"At this point, you need to realize that you are guilty of the Ãf¢EU~strawman fallacyÃf¢EUTM. 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 pleaseÃf¢EUÃ'¦argue against what I am sayingÃf¢EUÃ'¦not the NRA."

You're not helping yourself by playing the victim here, like most of the gun advocates I come across love to do.

IâEUTMm not playing the victim here. IâEUTMm pointing out that you are choosing to attack the NRA rather than address the arguments I am making.

âEU¦ your gut reaction to be on the defensive, your sensitivity to certain wordings, your lack of objectivity over the issue,

IâEUTMm not sensitive to certain wordings. When I bring up the lines used about these firearms in relation to the battlefield or the military, IâEUTMm pointing out that they do necessarily validate the point you are trying to make. IâEUTMm pointing out that the facts, which are both verifiable and subjective, are actually counterintuitive to the person who lacks a technical understanding of firearms.

Secondly, I have demonstrated that while I do have a strong biasâEU¦I approach the question objectively.
* I am against bans on guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 because they are not used in crime, nor are they capable of inflicting the mass killing and damage that is commonly ascribed to them. This is verified by government data on the subject.

* The ability of military rifles to commit mass murder and chaos is grossly exaggerated. While it appears reasonable on its faceâEU¦it is factually incorrect.

* The vast majority of death and crime are caused by handguns, therefore I am open to proposals that would further restrict including requiring a CCP to buy one and a limit on LCMs for handguns.

* Once you do the statistical analysis on the correlation on guns and gun crime; the relationship disappears. Which means any push to curb gun violence must be comprehensive and include:
- Increasing economic opportunity for disadvantaged minorities.
- Increasing funding for education in economically disadvantaged communities.
- Programs targeted at taking the glamour out of gang life.
- Making handguns harder to get by either increasing the age to 25 or requiring a CCP to buy one.
- Limiting mag capacity of handguns to 7 rounds.
- Reforming background checks: A) Providing it to individuals selling their guns to people they do not know, B) expanding it so that all states use one system, C) make it where the type or serial number of the firearm being purchased is reported on a voluntary basis.
- Reform some of the privacy laws that prevent educators and mental health professionals from communicating in extreme cases, such as Cho at VT, so that intervention could occur before a tragedy.

At this point, no politician is putting together such a comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence. They are just nibbling at the margins of the margins.


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) 2013-03-24 13:40:38 Reply

âEU¦and your pompous attitude,

Do not confuse pomp with authority. I bring up my credentials because they are relevant to the topic at hand, showing that I do posses the technical knowledge regarding firearms to talk about what the various types are capable of. I also have a graduate degree in a related field of social science so I am well qualified to speak on methodologies and the literature related to the subject.

What do you bring to the table that informs your opinion?

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.

No, IâEUTMm really not. I address what you put out directly. I only bring in the outside arguments about gun control in those places where you echo the common refrains of the gun-control community AND you do not support these echos with your thoughts or any support.

On the other hand, you bring the NRA almost immediately, along with OWSish indictments against the gun industry, in a weak attempt to deconstruct what I am saying. You do not address my points at allâEU¦instead you choose to engage in anti-NRA diatribes when I differ from the NRA in some key areas such as my stance on background checks, willingness to consider handgun restrictions, and in several places I agree with you that this issue is larger than guns and video games.

See the difference?

====

On a final note; you speak of my bias and lack of objectivity. On the otherhand, you describe yourself as a moderate. And yet...you demonstrate no characteristics of moderation. A true moderate looks at both sides and asks questions to see why those who are entrenched in one side or another are so wedded to their opinions. A moderate is also open to facts that contradict their worldview.

Thus far you have not shown any of these signs in your argument.

* You do not address, or even question, why I think that the notion that firearms 'that belong on the battlefield do not belong in the hands of civilians' is factually incorrect and based on false assumptions. No...the argument makes sense to you and therefore, despite acknowledging that you lack technical knowledge, you dismiss anything that goes against your worldview as illogical. A true moderate would question me, and open their mind to facts that challenge them rather than dismissing them as quickly as you do.

* I am not as firmly entrenched as you think as evidenced by my willingness to consider gun control that addresses the true gun epidemic in this country: handguns. I am also open to new requirements on background checks.

* You ignore entire tracts where I agree with you on the social problems underpinning gun violence. Nor do you address my conclusion that the 2013 AWB that was proposed would have minimal impact (based upon the data) and that efforts in areas such as education and economic programs would have far greater impact.

* You remain entrenched in the notion that all data that erodes your worldview is somehow corrupted by money by the gun industry. When in fact the data I source comes from three sources that are not funded by corporations. Instead, my data comes from the government and academics employed by universities writing for either the government or scientific journals.


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) 2013-03-24 17:56:40 Reply

At 3/23/13 09:50 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: 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.

1 second? Really? How many people, especially those who are not that experience, can change a mag in 1 second. Isn't that something the army tries to train their soldiers to do...

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

Yet, people have no problem with paying millions to keep these on the market.

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.

While both can be an addiction of sort, one is often used to take the rights away from others - or defend, in personnel perspective. The data has always been misleading, pushed by the gun community - or, gun industry. It doesn't take much to figure out that a lot of data in many of these studies were based solely on certain years, most recent ones. And they notoriously avoid certain factors to get their conclusions.

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.

And yet, people fight like dogs to keep them, while ignoring other important issues that face this country, just because of superficial accessories.

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.

We have the biggest prison system in the world, and people like you and me are paying for it. Personally, Firearms are nothing more than a false sense of security.


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.

As my gun nut friend (the one who hates doing background checks, and thinks that their should be no defining line on a weapon that is too dangerous, even if it has nuclear capabilities) said to me that the original Assault weapon ban was annoying, but harmless. So well the next one be.


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 often does that happen?

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.

Nothing is totally effective, they just trim things back a bit, making it harder for poor desperate people, and mental unstable, on a large scale to get their hands on such firearms and accessories, who create bad press for the gun community.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 19:35:23 Reply

At 3/24/13 05:56 PM, EdyKel wrote: 1 second? Really? How many people, especially those who are not that experience, can change a mag in 1 second. Isn't that something the army tries to train their soldiers to do...

He was overexaggerating. But really, the

Yet, people have no problem with paying millions to keep these on the market.

The difference is those are private citizens who by spending their money on whatever guns they want do not take away from other programs that could help people in disadvantaged communities find other ways to make a living other than gangs.

Now, the money the government spends on law enforcement does take those funds away from education and economic programs targeted at the urban poor.


While both can be an addiction of sort, one is often used to take the rights away from others - or defend, in personnel perspective. The data has always been misleading, pushed by the gun community - or, gun industry. It doesn't take much to figure out that a lot of data in many of these studies were based solely on certain years, most recent ones. And they notoriously avoid certain factors to get their conclusions.

Actually the data is nowhere near as misleading as you think. It comes from law enforcement and census data.

As for the point about based on certain years...there may be less here than it would appear.
- Some data is only available for certain years. For example, I cited Census data on murder rates. However, it only had data from '00, '02, '05, '08 & '09. This is not me cherrypicking the data...but using only what is available.
- If the data does not vary much from year to year, focusing on certain years and collecting the data may be a cost savings tactic for researchers who are on a tight budget due to budget cuts and the NSF's preference to fund hard sciences over the social sciences.

There is legitimate scholarship on this question. There are a few ways to make sure you're not getting biased or manipulated data:
1) Make sure you're not on a website such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign.
2) The study is funded from the government.
3) You're looking at a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
4) The book is published by a University Press.


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.
And yet, people fight like dogs to keep them, while ignoring other important issues that face this country, just because of superficial accessories.

Again...the point is these accessories are cosmetic and will have zero impact on saving lives and make the public more safe. In fact, regulation of these accessories will be counterproductive because they take money, manpower and resources from those other issues.

We have the biggest prison system in the world, and people like you and me are paying for it. Personally, Firearms are nothing more than a false sense of security.

Not at all. The prison system only perpetuates the cycle of poor education and economic opportunity that exacerbates the social ills that cause people to join gangs.

Secondly, get to know some cops. The false sense of security is those who rely on the police to protect them.

As my gun nut friend (the one who hates doing background checks, and thinks that their should be no defining line on a weapon that is too dangerous, even if it has nuclear capabilities) said to me that the original Assault weapon ban was annoying, but harmless. So well the next one be.

The original ban did not really ban anything. It is pretty much: much ado about nothing. It will not get these firearms off the street. And even if it did...it would not save any lives.


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 often does that happen?

Wait...you do realize you're making an argument against implementing the proposed AWB.


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.
Nothing is totally effective, they just trim things back a bit, making it harder for poor desperate people, and mental unstable, on a large scale to get their hands on such firearms and accessories, who create bad press for the gun community.

1) All it is is bad press. These firearms and accessories do not present a real threat to public safety...just a perceived threat to those who do not possess any technical knowledge about these firearms.

2) These firearms are actually less of a threat than handguns and shotguns, by banning them you'll be funneling the mentally unstable to firearms that will allow them to kill more people than could with an AR-15. These firearms are handguns and shotguns.

3) These firearms are actually fairly expensive. Most AR-15s before Newtown started around $900. AK-47s start between $550-600. On the other hand the black market offers plenty of handguns for much less, along with new handguns from legitimate dealers that cost between $250-500. Shotguns start in the upper $200s.


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

BBS Signature
thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 20:09:37 Reply

Themason pretty much has all my responses covered lol.

He better explained my points which i just wrote up real quick lol.


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-24 21:16:59 Reply

and Mason wins the arguements again.


JOIN FREEMASONRYIJOIN RNCIJOIN THE NRA NOWI JOIN AIPAC
Getting banned for telling it how it is since 2006!

BBS Signature
EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-25 02:32:03 Reply

At 3/24/13 01:18 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 3/24/13 04:05 AM, EdyKel wrote: I get a little annoyed when people shove a wall of stats at me. ...
Click on my links...

Also, if you want scientific answers and to actually understand the problem in all of its complexity...you need to learn not to be annoyed by stats.

*sigh

I already explained this in detail in the later part of my post/s. You really need to focus on the whole, not pick everything I say till you get to that part where I expound upon it. It kinda reminds me of what kids do to annoy their parents, when they mockingly everything their sibling, or parents say, because they think it's funny and don't know any better.

As for your point about 'funding'. This is getting a little conspiratorial. Yes, the Olin Foundation has funded research. But they are not as involved in the conducting of that research as you think.... So as long as the researcher is employed by a university and not a company or organziation...you can trust it.

Don't be naive. While they may have a higher standard to live up to, it doesn't mean much if they don't consider every factor involved, or they have a distinct bias, that pollutes their results. While I'm a strong proponent of the scientific method, I know that some studies are not always perfect and may take generations to figure out. Having some skepticism is good to have. Having none, or too much, aren't. You should understand that by now, not telling me to trust you because you think you have the skills and data you think are from trustworthy sources.

I don't trust you. Your intentional lack of certain information and facts, is the reason why.

BIAS
ME: Yes I have a bias on this issue. I will not deny this. However, there are two antidotes to bias: admitting it and knowledge. I let the data guide me.....
YOU: First of all, you need to grow a thicker skin. I never said "you people".....

You may want to do some introspection because reading through your post...time and time again you talk about data "making no sense" or going against "common sense" or being "illogical". You refer to a shooter friend of yours as a "gun nut", but how much do you know about firearms? Can you define the following terms and concepts?

Again, I explained much of this in my previous post/s. Admonishing me before you even get to those point is pretty counter productive, imo. I will expand on some of these.... I have a nasty habit of mirroring the attitude of the person I'm arguing with. Bringing up your credentials over and over again is nothing short of egotism, and shows constant contempt towards your opponent. This is made worse by you trying to draw out a straw-man fallacy towards my argument, which was directed towards the NRA. Whether you want to admit it or not, the NRA, and similar groups like them, have created just as much misinformation as you accuse gun control supporters of. I also find it downright demeaning when you throw a bunch of technical jargon into your posts, while dissecting everything I say. Quantity is not quality. I will come back to this last part a little later.

When I was being academia trained in the field of ancient history, they pounded into my head that I had to keep an open mind and to keep questioning things. What you learn about history is that it always changing, as new facts are found, or explored, leading to a reexamination on the effects it had on events and people that comprise the past. You also learn to look at everything from a distance, whiling zooming in on the things that make it all up. I was not intending to bring this bit of history about myself up, but I think it will demonstrate how I approach and see things differently than you.

As you have made this exceedingly difficult with your interrogating approach, and my refusal to clip and paste everything you say, I will bring up the stuff I have already mentioned in my previous posts -of whitch you have yet to come to, yet again - and expound upon them.

I'm a firm believer that without some wisdom to examine the facts with, intelligence is rather meaningless. What I'm seeing in your posts is a like a jigsaw puzzle. You have all the outside pieces, but none within the center. So you draw your conclusion on what think it is from those outer pieces.

I may not be pursuing my academic career any more, but I know that some of the sources you posted are downright worthless and deceptive. For example, I'm not sure what you were thinking when you posted this: A timeline of mass shooting... A quick look at it seems to kick your argument in the balls. I may be thick, but how many mass shootings happened in the last couple of years, according to it? Seems to be getting worse every year, imo. Why is that? Asking questions are always good, it leads you to other facts, and possible answers. The wikilinks source is near worthless, as it contains less information than the other one on spree shootings.

I pointed out that the gun industry has been expanding in the last decade (ten years), fueled by renewed interests in firearms from collectors and recreational use that goes beyond just hunting. (1) (2). The number of these massacres in which these assault weapon, or extended mags, were used seems to be on the rise, ever since the end of the assault weapon ban in 2004. What that tells me is there is a growing stockpile of these firearms/accessories out in the market, creating a bubble that will undermine any new gun laws in the near future, and an increase in their use in these horrific crimes.

Onto your next source: Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000 to 2009. A few quick searches on Google:

Science Confirms The Obvious: Gun Laws Are Associated With Fewer Gun Deaths

NRA misleads on assault weapons

Even though I am loath to bring these studies up, they pretty much counter several points in your argument, as well as the delivering delicious irony to your "trust these studies" argument. While it may be hypocrisy on my part to use them, I'm much too tired to do all the ground work. Personally, even with these studies, I still believe that much of the gun control over the last several decades have been nothing more than superficial. To bring up the words of my gun nut friend, who's only honest words were on the original Assault weapon ban "It was annoying but harmless". And that's what the gun control laws are in this country. They don't exactly prevent you from owning these types of firearms, they just make it harder for everyone to own them. And that is a good thing, but now that it is gone, prices on these types of firearms/accessories will go down, and become much more common on the market, leading to bubble that will eventually pop, leading to a lot of consequences for the gun community as they try to comically defend their policies and actions.

That's it for tonight...

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-25 03:22:26 Reply

Can't you address why you believe the DoJ is lying? Since they don't think Assault Weapons are a factor.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-25 14:00:37 Reply

@ EdyKel

1) I have addressed your point about crime being related to social factors. You on the other hand, do not address that argument. I have addressed your argument in its entirity.

2) I do not have any intentional lack of information or facts. I read studies from authors whose bias exists on both sides of the argument. In terms of opinion pieces. at this point over 9 out of 10 are either journalistic or anti-gun. I do not shield myself from information that challenges my opinion.

3) You have not addressed my criticism that the AWB was not, nor will be effective because assault rifles are not what you think they are. You have not presented any counter to:
* Military style ammo is not as effective at killing as self-defense, hunting, or shotgun ammo (that's not bird shot).
* Assault rifles have been used in multiple spree shootings, yielding less deaths than pistols.
* A high rate of fire reduces such degraded accuracy that less people get hit.
* Assault rifles are used exceptionally rarely in crime.

4) You brought up the NRA in response to what I was saying, instead of responding directly to my argument. That is called a Strawman Fallacy. Pointing this is out is NOT a Strawman Fallacy.

5) I throw in technical jargon because don't you think it is important to understand the issue that you are forming an opinion on? I do not do it to talk down to you...but in an effort to educate.

6) I did not link to the Think Progress or the Wikipedia sources as proof of what I was saying. I went back and looked at it in context. 'norThen 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):'
Let me clarify why I linked to them:
I created a database of spree shootings to see what patterns emerged. As a means of eliminating bias, I used lists of spree shooters compiled by others rather than compile one on my own. That way I could not be accused of intentionally leaving out a spree shooter because of my bias. I then looked at what guns were used in these shootings and how many people were killed and wounded.

7) The use of assault rifles in spree shootings are not going up. Actually, since the expiration of the assault rifle ban the number of assault rifles used in spree shootings has dropped...percipitously. Check it out:
BEFORE 1994
According to the Wikipedia list there were 6 shootings before the 1994 AWB went into effect. Of these:
3 (50%) used an assault rifle.
1 (17%) used an assault rifle exclusively.
5 (83%) used a pistol.
3 (50%) used a pistol exclusively.

1994-2004
According the the Wikipedia list and the Think Progress, there were 5 spree shootings during this time.
2 (40%) used an assault rifle.
3 (60%) used firearms covered by the 1994 AWB.
*(NOTE: The Columbine shooters used a rifle, but not an assault rifle. However, the pistols they used were covered under the AWB so I had to create another category).
4 (80%) used a pistol.
2 (40%) used a pistol exclusively.

2005-Present
According to the Think Progress list, there have been 24 shootings.
6 (25%) used an assault rifle.
20 (83%) used a pistol.
12 (50%) used a pistol exclusively.
====
Conclusions:

A) The time frame covered is 29 years. For the first 20 years, the number of spree shootings was relatively constant and similar (1984-1993 and 1994-2004). However, in the 9 years since the AWB expired shootings have increased four-fold.

B) Along with the increase in events (spree shootings); the incidence of assault rifles being used have actually decreased by roughly 20%.

C) Assault rifle usage was not concentrated or skewed towards the later part of the 2005-2013 time frame. Instead, they were spread out fairly equally across the time period: 2007 (2), 2009 (1), 2011 (1), 2012 (2).

So your assertion that these guns are increasingly used in spree shootings is not valid. In fact, their frequency of use has decreased in the nine years following the 1994 AWB.

====

8) Your PopSci source does not say what you think it is, nor does it contradict a thing I've said. Here's some quotes from the article:
"A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths, although that may not actually tell us whether one leads to the other." (Emphasis mine)

"However, the researchers didn't make any ground-breaking pronouncement about the relationship between gun laws and gun violence, warning that the study was "ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship.'"

This includes all gun deaths including homicide and suicide. The two are totally different things. Furthermore, there are many scholarly, scientific studies in the field of psychology that show that the presence or lack of presence of a firearm does not effect the rate of suicides.

In the end, remember correlation does not mean causation (as your source says). That's why I do not deny a correlation, just the science is actually pretty clear that gun laws are not a causal factor of crime. Education, economic opportunity, and belonging to a disadvantaged ethnic group are causal factors.

9) Dude, I am looking at all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. This entire time I've been speaking to the following parts of the puzzle:
* Educational differences leading to some groups more at-risk than others for a life of crime and gangs.
* Economic inequality.
* Racial inequality.
* The prison system being something that perpetuates crime rather than reducing it.
* Guns and what types are used.

There is science out there that supports this worldview; however you dismiss that science out of hand.

10) Since 2004, it has become easier to buy a type of firearm that is very rarely used in crime or in spree shootings. In the following 9 years, use of guns like the AR-15 have not spiked. Gun violence has not become worse. There has been no serious threats that you have demonstrated to the public safety.


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) 2013-03-26 01:32:36 Reply

At 3/24/13 01:18 PM, TheMason wrote: - Your bias is sneaking in here by dismissing the research as âEU~sillyâEUTM. In fact, it is logical and in line with human nature. See most criminals are out to make an easy score, they are not looking for trouble. So the greater the chance a potential victim will be armed and able to resist; the more likely the criminal will choose another target or not move into an area where more people have guns.

It defies common sense - I explain that a little later.

To clarify, I don't have a bias towards firearms, just the people who defend them. There's much more important issues facing our nation, but people get distracted by the paranoia that is being churned out by the right on gun control and the government. This wasn't much of an issue 50 years ago as it is now. The NRA use to believe that certain gun regulation were needed for a healthy society, but that changed back in the 70s. Now they churn out a never ending stream of propaganda, scaring people about the rise of another Nazi Germany, while feeding them about their glorious heritage and how righteous and special they are. Now, we have a bunch of spoiled, egotistical, children, voting in droves, and affecting the outcome of election, based solely on firearms. Enough is enough.

I recently read an article about how the NRA almost destroyed Smith & Wesson over their decision to limit mag size, against the NRA wishes. The NRA is much too powerful for a strictly non-profit group in this country. link

- As you know IâEUTMm a member of the gun community. That gangs and drugs are the reasons for the majority of gun violence is something that makes sense and is accepted. This is another piece of the puzzle. Things like CCP has an effect on crimeâEU¦however it will not reduce it to zero by itself. Same with drugs and gangs. Social programs that address why people choose âEU~thug lifeâEUTM over legal means of employment will most likely save thousands of lives per yearâEU¦but will not save every life.

*sigh

You think that a bunch of gang members, who are armed with their own firearms, will be deterred by yours? Ha! I doubt it. You are still not looking at the full picture, man. While much of the gun violence in this country is produced by gangs, it's also directed at them from rival gangs. It's what is commonly refereed to as gang wars. Occasionally, bystanders are involved by accident, or hit/killed by stray bullets. But, gangs are not the only source of gun violence in this country. A lot of it is petty burglary, and domestic violence. I can't see the latter being affected by CC laws. Then there are those spree shooters who.... Well, they just don't give a shit if they ;live or die. It a suicide run for them. They are trying to make a statement, or some crap, and end up either in a gun fight with the police or shooting themselves in the head. Again, CC laws are not a deterrent here.

The idea that CC deters people with firearms is just silly. I mean, if you think about it, the common thug is not a fountain of knowledge here, so it may take them years to realize their are CC laws in effect. I mean, they'll jump from the brush and surprise you from behind as usual, and if they are jittery, and if you spook them with unnecessary movement, your firearm will be useless. If any, CC laws are having negligible effects to deter gun violence. All CC does is make people feel big and powerful. I think I'm sure background checks and the price of ammo has more effect than any cc law.

As to social programs turning around the lives of these people.... They might help a little, but that's not the problem or the solution. I'm sure you know what morale is, being in the navy and all, and how important it is to the people in our armed forces who go up against an enemy. High morale is often a key to any victory. What you fail to see is the rotten system in this country that makes it hard for the "have nots" to move up the social ladder. They don't much hope of changing that. They are demoralized. And it's only getting better for them, and they feel that every day, when mega corporation come into their community killing off small business, while giving jobs you can't live off of. It doesn't help that these groups, thugs as you call them, also happen to be minorities. I'm sure you'll get my point about how I view the NRA ( whether you agree or not) , and the reasons they are against registration and background checks and other gun control measures that may make a difference in those communities.

- What does it matter if something irritates you, as long as it is within the norms of scientific inquiry? Let me demonstrate why when I say: These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisonsâEU¦it is acceptable.

So far, I haven't see that.

* While every state is different, there are still population clusters that share the same basic problems and similar social make-up.

Like north Dakota to knew york, or Alaska to California? No.

- KleckâEUTMs research adheres to scientific norms for the type of research question he was conducting. Defensive Gun Use is under reported because police do not track that data in a way that can be compiled across jurisdictions. Therefore, survey is an accepted way of conducting research. Furthermore, small sample size is a scientific norm not only in the social sciences, but the hard sciences as well. You can make accurate extrapolations from less than 1% of the population. Finally, all participants in any social scientific research project must be willing.

I know I saw it somewhere, but there was a chart on the net that showed the various reason people buy firearms for. I believe it was satirical, but it displayed my views on surveys perfectly. People have a tendency to exaggerate. They also easily get confused, but is not always their fault because of the wording in these surveys, which can be very misleading, or mean different things to different people. Then there are the questions themselves, which can be ineffective if there are to little, or if they are the wrong question to ask entirely. When these survey are then sent to off to people, the question of if they are being sent to the right sample areas, and if that is being properly taken into account. Or are they just being sent out randomly. And when they do come back, you have to take into account people's interests in the subject for them to fill them out and return them, opposed to people who throw it away. The point: there are so many variables, and you have to hope that you get all of them as accurately as possible if you are going hope to get an accurate conclusion. While the methods for survey taking may have improved, the polling data on the last presidential election still leave a lot of doubt on it's accuracy.

As for Kleck, is he the only one researcher you trust, because of he's not apparently affiliated with a pro-gun group - doesn't have to be just the NRA - and because he's flaming democrat? By the way, I'm a Republican, and I support some gun control. Does that make me automatically trustworthy to you? There's few holes in your logic there. Trusting the results of someone because you think he is unbiased because he belongs to a certain party that might oppose gun control is just plain silly.

*Still working through all your posts, man.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 02:48:58 Reply

At 3/24/13 01:20 PM, TheMason wrote:
I'm well aware of that, but the gun community often defends those features that straddle the line.
- Yes, the utility of LCMs is limited. However, does limited utility mean that it should be restricted? Not necessarily, you have to prove that this capacity increases the weaponâEUTMs threat to public safety. At this point, that has not been proven. AR-15s and AK-47 and other military rifles, even with their LCMs, have not demonstrated a threat to public health. However, LCMs in handguns have some effect on public health. HereâEUTMs why:
* Rifles are difficult to conceal, putting a LCM whether a 30rd box mag or 100rd drum only makes this more difficult.
* Rifles are too heavy and unwieldy for the vast majority of criminal applications.
* The most common, and inexpensive ammo for military style rifles is incredibly ineffective at killing, while self-defense rounds for pistols and shotguns are devastating and roughly the same price.
* LCMs have reliability issues. This is why 100rd magazines are not issued to infantrymen. They tend to jam the gun, which is what happened in Aurora, Co.
* The average shoot-out only involves three shots fired from each side.
- In what way does having a gun that is military in appearance make it a threat to public safety? Furthermore, if this did make it more deadly or more effectivelyâEU¦why are they not used more in crime?

You're scrounging for excuses. You know perfectly well that such firearm features are not needed. There are no reasons for them other than to lust over them. They have no practical application in hunting, or other recreational use. None. And these silly things are what the gun community fights over. Never mind the financial crisis. Never mind the millions losing their homes due to fraud and modified loans by the banks. Never mind the millions of jobs being sent over to foreign countries. Never mind the stagnant wages of the average workers, or the inflation caused by higher gas prices that chips away at their disposable income. Those things are unimportant to a few pieces of medal. Time and time again, I have seen this stupid argument. It's all insanity. The fact is, even if all of this was taken off the table, the gun community would still refuse to do anything, because it's how they have be programed to think. It's why these massacres will continue to get worse, and worse. And you have no solution, other than to turn your head away so you don't have to see it, because you covet everything about the firearms and you can't live without any one piece of them.

I fail to mention this because that is not reality. The rise of the assault rifle on the battlefield is a move away from things such as killing power and accuracy.

You missed the point entirely. I didn't bring up the National Firearm Act for it to look pretty. It was part of the point I was making. It's fortunate you brought up the Tommy gun. I was thinking of it as I was writing that part. But I wonder what you would pick in a fight? A Tommy or an AR-15. I would choose the the latter, or almost any semi-automatic rife over it for that matter. I think you would do the same. You know that modern domestic firearms have gotten a lot better than most military weapons of the 1930's. And I think you would agree. Don't try to bring up the browning, or other impractical machine guns that you have to set up, or other such things to squirm around the point. There was a point where the line between what was practical and what was excessive in society was drawn. I know you don't agree with it, and your right, I don't have the technical expertise on firearms, but that doesn't make me a fool when I know people are playing that game to gain an advantage to defining that line for others. I don't care if you don't think assault weapons aren't that bad, when they have shown up in the most recent shooting sprees. All you are telling me with that crap is that we should be looking the other way and not doing anything about these massacres. And this is part of the game that people like you are playing. Make a big enough stink and hope people will soon forget, and then play the game again when the next shooting spree happens.

"IâEUTMm not being heavy handed or showing indignation."

But you're playing the game, and you are showing indignation towards the problem by pandering to the gun community fears because you fear the wrong impression towards some stupid object you love.

It would be an injustice to seek civil suits against a manufacturer for the actions of a customer who uses their product illegally. The responsibility is on the criminal, not the manufacturer.

Hardly. It just makes them impeachable, and above the law. If lawsuits were filed against them, I don't think we would be in the mess we are in. I think Magazines would be a lot small, for a start.

LetâEUTMs have a heart-to-heart about the gun community taking responsibility. I do not want there to be any more massacres. But I am troubled by the solutions offered by people like Senator Fienstein and supported by people like you. You admit to lacking technical knowledge about firearms. So how do you know what is common sense, reasonable, and logical?"

As my gun friend once said, he would be willing to talk about firearms as long as firearms were taken off the table of discussion. This is all a game to you, and the rest of the gun advocates. If you were serious, you would have offered solutions other than arming teachers, and increasing firearm sales. :X

"IâEUTMm not playing the victim here. IâEUTMm pointing out that you are choosing to attack the NRA rather than address the arguments I am making."

I have addressed them, you just don't accept them, and wave them away as nonsense. And yes, you are playing the victim, over pieces of metal.

"At this point, no politician is putting together such a comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence. They are just nibbling at the margins of the margins."

Because there is no effort from the gun community to find practical solutions.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 03:13:41 Reply

yeah Mason took this one..


JOIN FREEMASONRYIJOIN RNCIJOIN THE NRA NOWI JOIN AIPAC
Getting banned for telling it how it is since 2006!

BBS Signature
Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 04:07:34 Reply

You seem concern about mass shooting. But even if you take away every guns, crazy people will just use something else like explosive. And if you take explosive, they'll use something else again. It can be as simple as a knife, and it's not rare 7 to 8 people die when mass knifing happen. The only way to prevent that kind of things, is psychological support for those in distress before they do something rash.

And don't hope politicians to deal with financial crisis and stuff if the gun issue is resolve, it's just one of many decoy. They'll find anything to prevent people from bothering the bankers, they are allies you see...

TheMason patience with you is impressive.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 05:17:53 Reply

At 3/26/13 04:07 AM, Dimitrilium wrote: TheMason patience with you is impressive.

he's debunked everything that guy said, but he is still like "your not getting the picture" when Mason has looked at every possible angle of the arguement.


JOIN FREEMASONRYIJOIN RNCIJOIN THE NRA NOWI JOIN AIPAC
Getting banned for telling it how it is since 2006!

BBS Signature
Iron-Claw
Iron-Claw
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 06:43:41 Reply

At 3/24/13 01:00 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

::I would love to find a Taekwondo black belt who could block a criminal's bullets with his roundhouse kick.

HA HA HA HA HA! Any and all Tae Kwon Doe black belts and all black belts of Martial Arts can knock a gun out of any and all criminals' guns out of their hands then take the gun apart so it will never work again then kill them with a single blow I GUARANTEE IT! You see unlike some people I actually know several forms of Martial Arts and am indeed very strong and for some odd reason I have had to deal with so many Jock Douchebags; for what? I don't know. The norm seems to be to be abusive to people who actually have Honor but they are so weak they can only inflict EMOTIONALLY and never ever PHYSICALLY because they have absolutely no muscle mass it's a wonder they're not confined to a wheelchair but apparently they're able bodied which is quite the baffling enigma indeed. Clearly I had more muscle mass in my right arm than they have in their entire bodies and all it would take is a single punch to the face with a mere 1/128 of my full strength to kill them that's how weak they were. It was either that or being unfathomably FAT and still totally convinced of their superiority! I think not!

To reiterate: The only people who need a gun are merely COMPENSATING FOR THEIR FREAKISHLY SHORT SHORTCOMINGS that's what makes them weak pathetic sissies who are just compensating. They should get a vanity license plate to coincide with their big fucking truck that reads: CMPNS8N (Compensatin') That you have chosen to ignore and is clearly of vital importance to the selling point of mine and vital contribution. Perhaps you should keep that in mind because the rules clearly state you must be familiar with the totality of a statement in every thread.

Martial arts are for brawls and small skirmishes against unarmed assailants. Not only is it a poor option for people who lack the physical capability for such action (ie: the elderly)

See previous statement on the weakness and sissy elements of those who need a gun. As For the elderly there's one thing I know it is a philosophy of mine and have a very philosophical mind I would gladly opine to anyone heres one of them:

There is no such thing as too old or too young to matter to be important to make a difference to be essential to save
The Universe. At age 73 Sean Connery made "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" in the final sequence he's giving The Phantom the most savage beating of his life a man a mere 1/3 his age and Sean Connery is very much alive to this day. At age 56 Arnold Schwarzenegger made "Terminator 3: Rise of The Machines" which is a nonstop action requirement of physical challenge and is very much alive and now at 66 has signed on to do the next installment of Terminator. At age 60 Sylvester Stallone made "Rocky Balboa," at age 62 made "Rambo 4," at age 64 made "The Expendables," at age 66 made "The Expendables 2" and "Bullet to the Head" and is very much alive and now at 67 has signed on to do "The Expendables 3." At age 66 Harrison Ford made "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull" and did all his own stunts with the aid of safety harnesses that could be removed with digital wire removal but nevertheless was a truly physically demanding role and now at age 71 has signed on to do all 3 of Star Wars episodes 7, 8 and 9 in addition to Indiana Jones 5. Clearly The Elderly can handle themselves quite admirably. As for those who are young infants and children need to be protected by RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE and given the proper upbringing so they don't turn into a deranged psychopath and shoot up children's schools when they grow up and proper discipline for bullies that have too much freedom on grounds of "freedom of speech" as far as I'm concerned any and all bullies need to be lined up and shot with a firing squad of everyone they ever hurt! People like that need the appropriate level of Discipline at their particular venue and the problem is that those bullies have got too much freedom by their superiors and those so-called "superiors" need to WAKE THE FUCK UP AND TAKE NOTICE GET SOME DISCIPLINE OR CONTINUE DOING NOTHING AND BURY YOUR ENTIRE VENUE! And by the way excessive emotional harm constitutes Harassment which is indeed a crime I Guarantee it!

And to those bullies: FUCK YOU ALL!!! YOU'RE JUST GIVING ALL OF US A VALID REASON TO KILL YOU IN A SAVAGE BEATING DROWNING IN A POOL OF YOUR OWN BLOOD BILE AND TEARS! YOU CALL THAT COOL? I GUESS WHEN YOUR DEAD YOUR BODY TEMPERATURE IS AT AN ALL TIME COOL! CAN'T GET MUCH COOLER THAN DEAD!

Iron Claw Has Spoken!


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
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 06:50:56 Reply

please the only way a martial artist could take out a trained marksmen if each respective individual were three feet away from each other. the Martial Artist would lose if it were Mid to long range because there is no amount of training to cover that much ground or incoming fire from a firearm

the whole martial arts rhetoric is a FALLACY in real life applications this isn't some Steven Segall movie.


JOIN FREEMASONRYIJOIN RNCIJOIN THE NRA NOWI JOIN AIPAC
Getting banned for telling it how it is since 2006!

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 09:27:08 Reply

At 3/26/13 06:43 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: [long rant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1VzOeGetkI


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

BBS Signature
Iron-Claw
Iron-Claw
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 11:39:20 Reply

At 3/26/13 06:50 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: please the only way a martial artist could take out a trained marksmen if each respective individual were three feet away from each other. the Martial Artist would lose if it were Mid to long range <more baseless bullshit>

WRONG! Advanced forms of Martial Arts do extensive training in dodging arrows that once you get quick enough reflexes you can dodge bullets which is a solid fact. All gun-toting sissies who just need overcompensation for their freakishly short shortcomings that are FREAKISHLY SHORT IN THEIR COMINGS have absolutely no quick reflexes if any at all! You see there's a great calamity most people who are completely and utterly insane and going to amass an arsenal of weapons and kill a bunch of innocent people those lunatics call it Eugenics It's a breeding system dating back to the 17th Century that the lunatics believe will give you much stronger capabilities if you filter out any and all the so-called "inferior races" their words not mine which include everyone who is Not White, Not Jewish, Not Gypsy, Not Gay, Not A Twin, Not Having A Condition, Not An Environmentalist, Not An Immigrant, Not Inclined To Speak Out Against Lunatics Like Them. The major flaw to Eugenics is once you build such an arrogant asinine set of restrictions you've basically created the absolute worst construction of genes you're just scrapin' the bottom of the barrel there nothing left but Crackers, Rednecks, Peckerwoods and Honkies at that point they're not even human anymore the human element no longer applies to Crackers, Rednecks, Peckerwoods and Honkies best just kill 'em off with a single blow from Martial Arts and because the genes of Crackers, Rednecks, Peckerwoods and Honkies are so weak it will kill them instantly. I know it. But I as Hell won't teach you you're not worthy of knowing I have honor and it would be of great shame to teach you that.

the whole martial arts rhetoric is a FALLACY in real life applications

Well, boyo that's an opinion in point of fact. Opinion nothing to do with the facts. Something you kids these days just can't differentiate. Further you cling to the foolish notion that if you can say that one thing that isn't true enough times that it will magically become true but no matter how many times you say that one thing that isn't true it doesn't make it true. Those who never got past 5th Grade in intelligence or maturity for that matter! Me I'm a much more intelligent enlightened individual who got his High School Diploma and moved on to College and acquired several skills in martial arts that contrary to YOUR FALLACY does prove far more effective in this plane we call REALITY is that Martial Arts does prove highly effective at self defense and discipline that if you don't have discipline they will kill you where you stand. I most definitely can kill any and all Crackers, Rednecks, Peckerwoods and Honkies with a single well place blow again not going to teach you or anyone else for that matter who is unworthy.

And in case you can't tell I'm White.


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
Iron-Claw
Iron-Claw
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 11:55:18 Reply

At 3/26/13 09:27 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 3/26/13 06:43 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: [long rant]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1VzOeGetkI

Please, Missy you have not beaten me in any way shape or form you have to contribute something what you have is nothing. I'd be hard pressed to say this has even jostled me in the slightest bit this is a complete failure of a counter argument. If you wish to beat me you will have to do better than that!


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
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 16:24:55 Reply

Source on people dodging super sonic objects?
Even shotgun pellets travel many times faster then any arrow.

Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 20:49:57 Reply

You can't dodge bullet bro, unless your name is Isao Machii, he could even maybe deflect it with a sword with some luck, but he's definitively not some average guy. He have a special perception skill.

All you can in a gun fight without gun, is to stay out of the line of fire until you get the opportunity of being withing range for a proper disarm. And even then, the risk is huge. I agree, being a martial artist is useful, but a martial artist+gun is better.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 21:31:52 Reply

All you can in a gun fight without gun, is to stay out of the line of fire until you get the opportunity of being withing range for a proper disarm. And even then, the risk is huge. I agree, being a martial artist is useful, but a martial artist+gun is better.

Martial artists do poorly in street brawls.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 21:37:24 Reply

At 3/26/13 11:39 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: WRONG! Advanced forms of Martial Arts do extensive training in dodging arrows that once you get quick enough reflexes you can dodge bullets which is a solid fact.

alright show me a few videos of a martial artist covering 10-20 feet dodging gunfire. if its close I will admit its going to be a brawl but mid to long range the marital artist is fucked and thats a fact.

heres a little info for you
Your typical 9mm projectile moves near 1400 feet per second.
5.56mm is 2,800 feet (853 meters) per second
Typical human Reaction Time is approximately 150 to 300 milliseconds (or 0.15 to 0.30 seconds).

now take this info add 10-15 feet of space between them and give the Gunmen say a 9MM SIG P226 with a magazine of 15 rounds. The Martial artist is dead.

if it were close range mugging scenario the martial artist would win if it doesn't turn into a brawl with the gun (someone will get shot)

now stop trying to derail the thread.


JOIN FREEMASONRYIJOIN RNCIJOIN THE NRA NOWI JOIN AIPAC
Getting banned for telling it how it is since 2006!

BBS Signature
Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 22:37:57 Reply

At 3/26/13 09:31 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
All you can in a gun fight without gun, is to stay out of the line of fire until you get the opportunity of being withing range for a proper disarm. And even then, the risk is huge. I agree, being a martial artist is useful, but a martial artist+gun is better.
Martial artists do poorly in street brawls.

Agreed, but martial artist often have better reflex and can move around better too. On two equal gunmen, other skills like martial art can make the difference. Giving your money if someone ask it with a gun is probably the best option anyway. Now if someone without gun get the opportunity by hiding behind a wall or is simply close enough, disarm need to be done flawlessly. The odds are always in favor of the guy with the gun but disarm within the human reaction time can be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LHTrFsSLZA

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 46
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 23:02:29 Reply

At 3/26/13 10:37 PM, Dimitrilium wrote: Agreed, but martial artist often have better reflex and can move around better too. On two equal gunmen, other skills like martial art can make the difference. Giving your money if someone ask it with a gun is probably the best option anyway. Now if someone without gun get the opportunity by hiding behind a wall or is simply close enough, disarm need to be done flawlessly. The odds are always in favor of the guy with the gun but disarm within the human reaction time can be done.

but the problem is the gap between the two by the time the guy with his fancy karate gets to the guy with the gun the gunmen could put 12 in him by then


JOIN FREEMASONRYIJOIN RNCIJOIN THE NRA NOWI JOIN AIPAC
Getting banned for telling it how it is since 2006!

BBS Signature
Dimitrilium
Dimitrilium
  • Member since: Dec. 24, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-26 23:36:48 Reply

At 3/26/13 11:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but the problem is the gap between the two by the time the guy with his fancy karate gets to the guy with the gun the gunmen could put 12 in him by then

You missed the word "opportunity". Meaning it may not always be possible. Also, running toward the guy with the gun is a bad idea, running out of sight and hiding somewhere where the distance will be short if you are found is a lot better.

A gun as self defense is superior to any training, but martial art can be a nice complement.