Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 46,597 Views
  • 1,772 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-29 14:45:37 Reply

I already pointed this out in a previous post. I wrote about them being an implication. You can't imply that these are for hunting, or for self defense, and even recreational use is stretching it a bit. When spree shooters use them, especially the more thoughtful ones, they are using them as a statement to scare the public. It's hard to be scared of a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or a handgun, but an assault weapon stands out. You might think it's a misunderstood weapon, unfairly vilified, but to the average Joe, it means just that, an assault weapon, something from the battlefield. You may not agree with that but that's how it's viewed by others. It's viewed as unnecessary and extreme.

I actually agree with you about the perception that the non-shooting public has about these firearms. However, the emotions of people who lack context or knowledge does not make these perceptions correct. To found any sort of argument in them is foolish and ignorant.

Furthermore, the person who finds it hard to be afraid of a shotgun, handgun, or hunting rifle is a fool and mentally lacking. I have shown that these firearms are actually far more deadly and capable than the assault rifle. This is not subjective. These are scientific facts based largely on physics. The lethality of the firearm is not in its looks or action. It is based upon:
A) The energy the bullet is able to transfer to the target, (F=MA2)
B) The way this force acts upon the bullet once it hits the target. (the properties of the shape and composition of the bullet)

A firearm's accuracy is a component of the ballistics of the bullet as well as the action. Automatic firearms bleed energy from the round making it less accurate and less forceful on the target.

The faster you fire, the more recoil you abosrb at once. When guns fire, they pull up. If you compound the recoil they will pull up and to one side.

Also, as I have pointed out...it is a matter of international law that weapons developed for the battlefield do not make death inevitable. Modern military firearms such as the AR-15 and AK-47 fire a round called an intermediate round; they are not high powered and they have been getting smaller and less effective at killing. Therefore, the non-shooting public's perception is erroneous. That these guns are designed for the battlefield is actually, an argument NOT to ban or further regulate them.

====

Either show that these features are a legitmate threat to public safety or shut-up. Perception is not reality, especially when you're talking about the perceptions of people who do not have knowledge about that which they are speaking.

Instead of dismissing my reasons and the scientific facts I have presenting...question them. Look into them. I am not trying to drown you with 'technical jargon'...I'm trying to show you that your perception is based upon a very shakey and nonexistent foundation.


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) 2013-03-29 16:04:00 Reply

I wish for their continued success and expansion.


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) 2013-03-29 23:26:48 Reply

At 3/28/13 11:00 AM, TheMason wrote:
At 3/27/13 11:39 PM, EdyKel wrote: You mean the heavily stereotyped argument you have been alluding to? I think I have done a much better job in my previous post than you did on it.
What are you talking about? Where have I been stereotyping?

And no...you have not articulated any sort of clear argument.

The whole crime and social factor thing, which you summarized in a few sentences, and concluded that the best course of action was to defund gun laws and shift the resources from it to social programs to deal with it. I pointed out how silly and oversimplified this view was, and how trillions have already been spent on this social problem and how it has solved nothing because of the system that is against changing it. I thought it was very clear.

"I have earned my credentials. I have earned the right to claim that I am an authority on this subject. So I ask you: who is showing more hubris? Me for saying I have been around the process of social science and trained in the scientific method as applied to social science? Or you for lecturing me about being more humble, and then proceeding to lecture me about methodological criticisms based on your quick google search?"

That's just arrogance and egotism, man. Come back down to earth. All you are doing is blinding yourself to your self describe superiority, never admitting you may not be infallible.

Son, I made a point about googling my sources to you, because that's how your sources came off to me. It's why I also mentioned my academic background. I also told you I have no real interest in doing any real leg work on doing proper research work for this.

Aside from all this, my biggest problem with your argument, besides the lack of data, and your lack of ability to question what you have, is your refusal to open both your eyes to see the whole picture. It doesnâEUTMt take a genius to see the crux of your argument, something you have continuous failed to address: Why, in all probability against it, does loose, to non-existent, gun laws produce lower gun violence, when probability and human nature, dictates other wise. This is what you continue to fail to answer, which mean you donâEUTMt have all the data, and you are failing to question your own findings.

The other problem IâEUTMm having with your arguments is the conflicting views you have on gun control. You tell me in one part we should get rid of gun laws, and then tell me that you would be open to them for handguns and other such things. I donâEUTMt think you know what you quite want. All I can take from this is that you realize there is a gun problem in this country, but you want to aim it at other types of firearms, away from assault weapons. Of course, I figure this would raise handgun prices, while lowering Assault weapons prices, and pushing them in the same direction as handguns, by making them more common, which would then make this whole line of argument seem pretty moot. And you should realize, by now, that your other argument on moving resources from gun control to social programs seems to have been just a giant waste of time, since you do support gun control. Or have you not made up your mind on what you want, while trying to speak definitively on both those arguments? In either case, youâEUTMre not helping convey solid, or convincing, post to sway my mind.

This reflects poorly on your claims as a professional annalist of data, and immune to emotions and bias.

When I look at crime stats I look at raw data from the government (Census, FBI, etc).

Then save and show them instead of these google links.

It's time to get over your focus on Kleck. The reason I brought-up Kleck was to show that not all of the research out there is done by people who approach it either with no pro-gun feelings at all...

We don't know that, that's just an assumption. I have pointed this out to you. This is a logic fallacy. Not all democrats are for gun control. That is a fact. This has a lot to do with their liberal, or conservative ideology, rather than a political party thing. I'm a Republican, a moderate, which mean I'm for some gun control measures. This sort of logic of yours would dictate that I am against gun control of any sort, and we would not be having this conversation, if you assumed my stance on the political party I belong to.

No...I do not misconstrue your argument at all. I get it. My response is: Then where should that line be drawn...and how, if you do not understand guns, these features, and how they are used in crime how do you know you're drawing the line where it needs to be drawn?

IâEUTMm going to combine both this reply from you and your reply on my accusation that youâEUTMre no different from the NRA.

I may not consider myself that bright, but did you actually think about either of these responses when you made them one after the other?

I canâEUTMt imagine anyone suggesting more regulations on handguns, and I suspect that any talk over them will make the current talk over assault weapons look jovial in comparison. This is what IâEUTMm talking about when IâEUTMm saying youâEUTMre being just as helpful as the NRA over this issue. YouâEUTMre not helping, youâEUTMre stoking the fires, not just on this, but your indecision over gun control and perpetuating a myth that loose gun control leads to less gun violence.

Assault weapons, and high capacity mags, have no place in our society, not for defense, and not for hunting. Everyone knows that, including you. All youâEUTMre indicating to me with your logic is to steer people into buying more dangerous weapons with your argument for tighter handgun laws. That doesnâEUTMt seem to smart, or, as you put it, âEUoeintellectual honestâEU.

As for responsibility...I do take responsibility for my firearms...

I think my point has been quite clear on the subject. Your personnel responsibility to YOUR OWN firearms was never in doubt. I have explained the rest in the above posts.

1) Spree shootings is a very rare event. There are not hundreds or thousands per year.

2) I do not see anything wrong with my methodology because this is a rare event: there have only been about 40 in the past 30 years. There is no need to go to the government, also chances are there are no government databases that would be available for me to use. So I have to create my own database.
3) I am aware that there are attempts that are stopped before they happen. However, this is not as damaging as you would think it is. First of all, something is making these sprees more common.

And when they do happen - and they will continue to happen - they remind us how dangerous firearms can be. People like to think they are safe in public areas, and this shatters their belief and confidence in it. This is what you continue to leave out in you analysis of the problem. You look at it as something that just happens on occasion, and nothing else, but just data, while everyone else acts in the human way to such horrendous events.

You can not treat this like other sciences. The human element does not work the same way as physics, chemistry, or biology, itâEUTMs a lot more unstable. While you can tell with some accuracy what certain groups of people will do at any given time, there is more uncertainty over what any one individual will do. We can say that there will be a hundred massacres attempts this year ( because itâEUTMs not easily forecastable the amount), but because law enforcement, and luck, many of them well be thwarted. Since you have not answered the âEUoewhyâEU question of why more firearms are leading to less violent gun crimes, we have to assume that we helping to enable them to cause grave loss of life with loose gun laws, and because of that, the costs of trying to prevent them will also increase.

So, no, I donâEUTMt believe in your methodology is very accurate.

EdyKel
EdyKel
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 25
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-30 00:20:08 Reply

At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, TheMason wrote: - The data on guns availability and firearms is volumous and conclusive: gun availability is not a causal factor for gun crime.

I would say it's far from conclusive, considering there are over 10,000 gun deaths yearly in this country, a ratio higher than most other countries with strong gun control laws.

....and we both know what's been driving sales, people from the gun community buying more guns because they were scared that they would be taken off the market because of NRA and tea party propaganda about tyrannical government.

- There is no lack in my data concerning spree shooters. You assume that the phenomenon is much larger than it actually is.

...and you assume it's much less. I can only assume you think it's because of loose gun laws, which I have pointed out how laughable that is.

- I understand the supply and demand of guns. They are probably not going to go down because of the larger economy. Instead, they are going to go down in price because of Sandy Hook. The reason is all this talk of a renewed AWB has spurred a multi-month frenzy over buying assault rifles in general and the AR-15 specifically. So much that demand outweighs supply. Now the market will correct itself and the price will probably drop below the 2011-2012 MSRP. Not because of the economy: a) the economy has stabilizied and b) the prices of these firearms have remained stable these past five years.

No, I haven't forgetting about that, or easy credit. And yes, the economy did play a role in slowing it down. I think it would have been a lot worse if the financial crisis didn't happen, and the economy was stable. Years of far right rhetoric have made people stupid, and they feared the election of a liberal president would have dire effects on the availability of firearms on the market,while others believed he would start a race war.

- Your point about copycats is a little silly. See Holmes obtained his firearms using legal means. None of the proposals would really stop spree shooters from obtaining a firearm since they are not people who would be denied purchasing a firearm after a background check. Furthermore, spree shooters use guns that were purchased legally...even if (in the case of Columbine) they were straw purchases.

How is it silly when you're using the very point I just made. But, that's okay, because your agreeing with me that such firearms need to be regulated, making them harder to obtain for spree shooters. Thanks for agreeing to my point.

You also open yourself up to further deconstruction of your argument because:
* Copycats may choose to use handguns instead of an AR-15 because the rifle failed before firing 30 rounds out of his 100 rd mag. Of the 70 people he hit, less than half were hit by his assault rifle.
* Copycats will see that if they cannot get ahold of a firearm they can use homemade explosives and chemical agents since Holmes did.

I already took all this into account. For most of them, it's all about making a statement. It's all about terrorizing by using the most horrendous method they can find. It's what the Oklahoma bomber did. But that was well planned. Most aren't, imo. They'll try to find the easiest, and most terrifying, weapon they can get their hands on. And Holmes has pointed the way for others to do what he did. It don't matter if he was able to use the AR15 properly, it did it's job.

Um...this doesn't address the point at all. Especially when you consider that they were a few charts taken out of context (nor did you attempt to articulate any original context on your part), re-posting a few of my sources (without articulating how they contradict what I said), nor a third point I address next.

The fact that they don't support definite conclusion on the subject is contradiction enough.
No...that's not contradiction at all and you're only showing your own unfamiliarity with the methodology and how to study this issue scientifically.

I'm not interested in using your method that can't even explain a simple "why". I already pointed out how some of your sources aren't worth shit. And I told you why I have no interest in doing the legwork, namely because I find your methodology flawed. Why should I spend a lot more time try to counter them on the basis of data, when I can easily sit back, googling a little, to question and to point out the flaws in your data.

See what they were publishing at that conference was only a correlational study. Studies done by Kleck, Lott, Koper, etc tend to use statistical methods that can establish causality. The source you linked to was weak, and in no way an indictment over the entire body of scholastic research.

I already told you why I think his method was flawed, oh, and here's that link I though reflected my views perfectly on it. Since you like using Klecksstudies, here a few links that criticize and bring doubt to his findings. source 1 and source 2

You're squirming here and refusing to address my argument.

No, it's just going circular, and I'm ending up repeating myself over and over.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-03-30 09:04:50 Reply

At 3/29/13 11:26 PM, EdyKel wrote: The whole crime and social factor thing, which you summarized in a few sentences, and concluded that the best course of action was to defund gun laws and shift the resources from it to social programs to deal with it.

That's not being stereotyping. Also, I don't make the argument to defund gun laws. What I'm saying is we've got our gun laws at an appropriate level. There is some room for tweaking, especially in our background checks, but the AWB would do nothing. That is not 'defunding'...that is pointing out doing something would be wasteful.


That's just arrogance and egotism, man. Come back down to earth. All you are doing is blinding yourself to your self describe superiority, never admitting you may not be infallible.

First of all, I never made the claim of being infallible.
Secondly, it is a legitimate statement. I have the training in this analysis and in firearms. You lack both. Therefore, I can claim a higher degree of sureity in my argument than you can.


Son, I made a point about googling my sources to you, because that's how your sources came off to me. It's why I also mentioned my academic background. I also told you I have no real interest in doing any real leg work on doing proper research work for this.

First of all, my sources are not googled. I'll get to that later.
Secondly, your academic background is not in the social sciences (I believe you said ancient history) and you also said you never finished your studies. Does not put you on the same footing as a social scientist to critique social science methodology. You want to talk about egocentrism, arrogance, and coming back to earth...
Third, if you're not interested in educating yourself: don't you DARE lecture someone else about being open minded, closed eyed, unable to see the 'whole picture', and (my favorite) self-inflicted ignorance! Your refusal to 'do the legwork to research this properly' invalidates any claims that I lack data or have a flawed methodolgy without social science credentials.


Aside from all this, my biggest problem with your argument, besides the lack of data, and your lack of ability to question what you have, is your refusal to open both your eyes to see the whole picture. It doesnâEUTMt take a genius to see the crux of your argument, something you have continuous failed to address: Why, in all probability against it, does loose, to non-existent, gun laws produce lower gun violence, when probability and human nature, dictates other wise. This is what you continue to fail to answer, which mean you donâEUTMt have all the data, and you are failing to question your own findings.

1) I do not lack data. As I have pointed out:
* I am well read in the academic literature
* My sources come from legitimate scientific and governmental sources.

2) The argument is not over loose gun laws. The argument is that Assault rifles do not pose a threat to the public safety and that those advocating for a AWB have yet to articulate HOW the 19 characteristics when paired with a LCM pose an uncommon or extreme threat to public safety or where in the last 40 years they have ACTUALLY demonstrated a clear and present threat. Loose gun laws is something that you bring up as a strawman.

3) No...I have not failed to address it. Your fundamental assumption that probability and human nature dictate that more guns=more crime is flawed.
* In order for probability to play a role, then guns would have to be able to cause crime independently of any other variable...including human beings. This is either an ignorant or insane argument.
* Humans by nature are not homicidal. This is why the Army trains soldiers by shooting at human shaped targets: psychological studies have shown that in WWII over 80% of soldiers where subconsciously aiming over the enemy's head because humans are wired not to kill other humans.
* Humans also tend to avoid extraordinary risk. This is why if someone breaks into your home and you pull a gun (or tell them you have one while keeping a locked door between you and them) they flee. 9 out of 10 times, the presence of a gun in the hands of an intended victime causes a criminal to flee. Furthermore, the vast amount of defenseive gun uses does not involve the trigger being pulled. When a civilian pulls a gun there is less chance of someone getting hurt than when a cop pulls one.

4) I question my own position all the time. I do not read NRA or GOA literature. If anything, I read anti-gun journalism far more often. I read studies by people who come to pro-gun-control conclusions such as Arthur Kellerman. Also, my stance on handguns reflects this. But as you show later...you have to twist this against me to justify your own entrenched position.

The other problem IâEUTMm having with your arguments is the conflicting views you have on gun control. ...

I do know what I want, what my arguments are, and they do not conflict.

At no point have I said: 'we should get rid of gun laws'. All I have said is that a ban on assault rifles would not solve any problems and would be a waste of money. What you are doing here is building a strawman out of what you think the NRA line is and what some real or imagined 'gun nut' friend of yours has said...and then ascribed that to what I believe.

I cannot change your mind because your mind is so closed that you cannot accept new information. You have to categorize it according to what YOU think my argument and intentions are or should be. Nothing in this paragraph is an accurate reflection of my argument to this point.

This reflects poorly on your claims as a professional annalist of data, and immune to emotions and bias.

The inconsistencies are the product of additions YOU have made to my argument to make them fit your preconceived notions of what someone opposed to FURTHER gun control measures such as bans on AR-15s should argue. Since they are not an actual portrayal of my argument...there is no poor reflection.

When I look at crime stats I look at raw data from the government (Census, FBI, etc).
Then save and show them instead of these google links.

Um...those tables can be considered, for this venue, raw data.

We don't know that, that's just an assumption. I have pointed this out to you.

*sigh* Actually...if you go back to the first time I brought up Kleck...I mentioned that he was a self-described LIBERAL Democrat. To point out that he does not approach this from the Right Wing or a Conservative ideology...and came up with a conclusion that goes against what his bias would seem to be.

Nothing more. I was trying to make a point.

Also, you are attempting to tell me what I think again. I do not believe party ID OR ideology determines one's belief on every issue. They are a strong indicator of how you are most likely going to believe on any random topic. But these factors will not be true for every issue with everyone. Nor do they determine individual beliefs.

Finally, very, very, very few people even on the very pro-gun side of the argument would argue for 'no gun control'. So merely being for some gun control does not make you either extreme or moderate. It is what you base 'drawing the line' on that determines whether or not you open minded (moderate) or closed minded. You have not shown moderation.


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) 2013-03-30 09:56:52 Reply

I can't imagine anyone suggesting more regulations on handguns, and I suspect that any talk over them will make the current talk over assault weapons look jovial in comparison. This is what Im talking about when Im saying youre being just as helpful as the NRA over this issue. Youre not helping, youre stoking the fires, not just on this, but your indecision over gun control and perpetuating a myth that loose gun control leads to less gun violence.

1) I agree, I do not think more regulations on handguns are politically viable. But that does not mean that this is where further regulation is needed.

2) No I am stoking the fires. I am pointing out where the data indicates the problem is.

3) As I've pointed out: I have no indecision over gun control. I do not make the argument that we should have no gun control. I make the argument that a ban on guns like the AR-15 will not have any effect on crime.

4) There is significant statistical evidence that legal gun ownership leads to a decrease in gun crime. Furthermore, there is not a strong causal link between LEGAL gun availability and gun violence. The majority of gun violence are related to other crimes (specifically gangs and drugs)...and involve guns that are obtained illegally.

Assault weapons, and high capacity mags, have no place in our society, not for defense, and not for hunting. Everyone knows that, including you. All youre indicating to me with your logic is to steer people into buying more dangerous weapons with your argument for tighter handgun laws. That doesnt seem to smart, or, as you put it, intellectual honest.

Again...you ascribing an intentional, conspiratorial motive to me. I have tried to show you that these firearms are NOT near as dangerout as you think they are.
* That the Hague Convention made the use of of expanding bullets illegal in the use of war in order to make death NOT inevitable IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.
* That the AR-15 fires a small round at a high velocity that makes expansion in hollow points and other ballistic tipped bullets unlikely IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.
* That the ROUND that the AR-15 shoots is considered so WEAK and INEFFECTIVE at killing that many states make it illegal to shoot deer with it IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.
* That these guns have been on the civilian market since at the the 1980s and even when they are most cheap: criminals choose handguns far, far more often IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE MADE UP.

What is intellectually dishonest and not too smart is YOU being so sure of yourself that these are the dangerous weapons you THINK they are! Time and time again YOU REFUSE TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE THAT IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND LAW BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH YOUR PRECONCEIVED IDEAS!

<rant>
SO DO NOT DARE TELL ME WHAT I DO OR DO NOT KNOW, OR ACCUSE ME OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY WHEN YOU ARE UNWILLING TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. DO NOT DARE TO ACCUSE ME OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY WHEN YOU CONSISTENTLY ASCRIBE ARGUMENTS AND BELIEFS TO WHAT I'M SAYING THAT I HAVE NOT SAID BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR IDEA OF WHAT MY ARGUMENT SHOULD BE AND THEN ARGUE AGAINST THAT!
</rant>

And when they do happen - and they will continue to happen - they remind us how dangerous firearms can be. People like to think they are safe in public areas, and this shatters their belief and confidence in it. This is what you continue to leave out in you analysis of the problem. You look at it as something that just happens on occasion, and nothing else, but just data, while everyone else acts in the human way to such horrendous events.

Wow!

No...I am aware that this shatters people's feelings of safety. Furthermore, when the guy offs himself like Cho or Lanza the public needs justice. The guy is dead, so it renews a heated debate on guns. This is ONE REASON why when Holmes surrendered to police the gun control debate was muted after Aurora. In Newtown you have children dying and the guy offing himself...so people naturally want justice so they opt to do SOMETHING.

I have never said this does not happen. Nor have I brought it up because it is irrelevent to the topic at hand which is the threat to public safety posed by assault rifles.

I also react to these on a human level. I am going into teaching. My mother was a teacher. I have had personal experience with a potential shooter when my ex-wife and I took in her brother-in-law and intervened when he wanted to go on a spree at my high school...to include killing my mom. So yeah...I react emotionally. A very signifcant part of me wishes that the answer was so easy as banning guns and no one else will have to die violently. But the data does not lead me down that avenue of false security.

But yet, I also have the training to look at this dispassionately and without emotion. Much like a doctor who is fascinated by cancer, while being horrified by having to tell patients they have six months to live.

This is a bullshit argument on your part.

You can not treat this like other sciences. The human element does not work the same way as physics, chemistry, or biology, its a lot more unstable. While you can tell with some accuracy what certain groups of people will do at any given time, there is more uncertainty over what any one individual will do.

You tell me nothing that I do not know already.

However, what YOU do not know is that there are ways to deal with the human element. That is why my credentials are important: I have been trained in those methodologies.

We can say that there will be a hundred massacres attempts this year ( because its not easily forecastable the amount), but because law enforcement, and luck, many of them well be thwarted.

This overestimates. These massacres are a very rare event that involves many rare personality traits, imbalances, and environmental stimuli to happen. And while these causes are coming together more often...they remain exceedingly rare. It is more likely that less than 10 will be stopped this year.

Since you have not answered the why question of why more firearms are leading to less violent gun crimes, we have to assume that we helping to enable them to cause grave loss of life with loose gun laws, and because of that, the costs of trying to prevent them will also increase.

This is not the question we've been discussing. This is an attempt to move the goal posts. And I have addressed this question in the first part of this post.

What is core is what sort of weapons will lead to grave loss of life. You have yet to show that an AR-15 will lead to more loss of life than someone with a handgun.

Finally, these guys have shown a proclivity towards bombs and we're starting to see chemical weapons used (Holmes). Some chemical weapons can be made for less than $50 at Lowe's. Take away guns and these massacres may actually get worse.

So, no, I dont believe in your methodology is very accurate.

Only because you lack training in it, do not understand, and are too lazy to rectify this state of ignorance.


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) 2013-04-01 03:13:17 Reply

At 3/29/13 01:34 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 3/28/13 11:37 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Dude...seriously? Stop trying to show that you're not guilty of what you're guilty of. I cannot speak to whatever other forums you post on. That is irrelevent. What is relevent is how we discuss things on this forum. You complaining about me going point-by-point, in this forum, is whining...not winning.

Guilty? I'm guilty of what, exactly? Not playing playing by your rules, or some shit. Seriously, man, for someone who claims to be above emotions, you sure are sensitive. Picking apart every little thing in someone's post is downright petty, because your sensitive to what they're saying about you. I know you will deny that, but I don't give a shit. Just stop whining that your above it. And lets move on, instead getting off subject.

Um...I was not trying to drown your first response with 'techno babel'. I was trying to show, using objective fact to show that you are basing your opinion on a very poor and uninformed foundation. Rather than actually try and clarify or question why I posted these arguments...you dismiss them out of hand.

Yes, you were, and I have pointed out more than once why your data is flawed.

...and through all that you haven't told me why you need them, other than to have them.
You are the one who thinks that having them presents a threat to public safety and should be either regulated or banned.

You have yet to show HOW these features present a threat to public safety AND that these features are presenting a clear and present danger to public safety.

They are firearms, son. Not toys. That's how people like you treat them, though, and that is dangerous if you forget what they are.

No they do not. These firearms have been on the market for decades now. They are not used in crime to any degree of either frequency or effectiveness. This is reality.

Yes, and now how many companies make them? Competition is going to bring down prices, that's how it works.

And my point has always remained, pointing out the stupidity and the bigotry that emanates from the gun community in their defense of superficial features and accessories on the market.
1) Knowing the capability of something and pointing out that it does not do something someone thinks or perceives it does is not stupid. Especially when the person who is thinking or preceiving does not have any knowledge about these things.

2) How is it bigoted? Now you're just throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks.

It's called perspective. And I read enough, and dealt with enough stupid people from the gun community to know quite well the many reasons why they buy firearms. I can't help if you want to blind yourself to it in your defense of the gun community, but, as you put it "it's intellectually dishonest".

Because you havenÃf¢EUTMt presented all the data that explains Ãf¢EUoewhy?Ãf¢EU you think, in all probability, loose gun laws leads to less gun violence when most of it originates with people who are not deterred by guns.
No I have not. I'll do that now.

LOL.Again, you couldn't even begin to explain why loose gun laws lead to less gun violence. You just threw a bunch of data, and theories, that don't even begin to answer the question in any way or form. Didn't you just say "Now you're just throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks."?

It doesn't matter how many times you try to recycle the same ol' theory, I'll continue to trash it as unrealistic nonsense. I already pointed out how your theory has failed for the last couple of decades because of the system in place, and even if we continue to dump money into the problem in hopes that it will go away, you think conservatives, or Republicans, the same groups who are against gun control, are going to support your ideas, when they are trying to slash those social programs to save military spending, oil subsidies, and other pork spending to their districts that benefits certain companies, and ultimately, themselves? This is called reality.

Also, and our background check system, while still full of holes, is still straining out much of the people with criminal records, along with renewed interests in gun trafficking on the national level.
And again...I've talked about how I am NOT opposed to revamping the background check system. I think the pro-gun-control Democrats pushing this are doing it wrong and I have suggestions on how to better do them.

....and Republicans are helping out how? they just seem to be sitting quietly, while ready to vote against anything that Democrats are proposing. So, nothing is getting done, because the other side refuses to work to find common solutions to the problem. And that's how things truly stand right now. It's a game to do nothing.

What a bunch of dog shit. And you should know that. Some of the worst massacres in this country happened last year. I donÃf¢EUTMt care if you donÃf¢EUTMt think these firearms werenÃf¢EUTMt used properly, or the infrequency these happen at. I already pointed out a bunch of data you havenÃf¢EUTMt calculated into your conclusion, and the logic fallacies in it.
Not dog shit at all.

The data you pointed out is not as extensive as you think it is. There is a difference between planning for something and actually following through with it.

There are no logical fallacies because it is hard data that reflects reality.

No, all you're telling me you is that you know that these massacres will continue, but you don't know how many will happen, and you hope that your data is conclusive enough to show that their is no need to do anything about them, other than throw more money at other problems so you can hold onto a few features that you know inspire fear to the public, and you don't really need.

:: The idea of these gun laws is to not make these firearms a standard weapon of choice among criminals, and maniacs. Keeping them well regulated, and the prices high, will reduce the chances of these weapons being used in such crimes and massacres

Do you see now why this is wrong?

No. You have proven nothing. As competition continues, prices for these firearms will continue to go down. Pointing out a few models, when there are many models and types on the market is deceptive. I guess the best way is to describe like the car market, where the price of the firearm is often dictated by quality and features, but you get some that are incredibly cheap. Then there is the whole resale market to take into account,where can get older, or models, for a fraction of the cost, with less oversight - And with somewhere around 3.5 million of these firearms out in the public, it's going to make it quite easy to obtain them for bargain prices. One of the things you lack in your calculations is how the internet has changed the way people obtain their firearms from the comfort of their home, instead of having to brave a gun store and inquire about these types of firearms.

To make things clear to you. I don't have any emotional attachment to this issue. I just think the gun community is dumb, mean, and vicious. When all is said and done, these massacres will continue, and they get worse, and yours just trivializing the ones that have happened so you don't have to take the problem seriously.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-01 07:47:30 Reply

At 4/1/13 03:13 AM, EdyKel wrote: Guilty? I'm guilty of what, exactly? Not playing playing by your rules, or some shit.

AgainâEU¦discretion is the better part of valor. The norms of this forum are not my rules. Attempting to squirm the argument back to me is very poor discussion form.

Pointed out your laziness about âEU~techno babbleâEUTM.
Yes, you were, and I have pointed out more than once why your data is flawed.

UmâEU¦on this point my âEU~dataâEUTM is not flawed. The capabilities of a firearm are not subject but based firmly on science and engineering.

You have yet to show HOW these features present a threat to public safety AND that these features are presenting a clear and present danger to public safety.
They are firearms, son. Not toys. That's how people like you treat them, though, and that is dangerous if you forget what they are.

Wow! This just goes to show your level of bigotry towards gun owners! You cannot articulate a sound argument for your position so you go all ad hominem!

Now, instead of trying to trying to tell me how I think; why donâEUTMt you try to actually formulate a coherent argument for your position? On the point of assault rifles (not pistols) you have yet to show how they present a clear and present danger to public safety or are uncommon or unreasonable under Heller.

No they do not. These firearms have been on the market for decades now. They are not used in crime to any degree of either frequency or effectiveness. This is reality.
Yes, and now how many companies make them? Competition is going to bring down prices, that's how it works.

Now as in all the companies that make AR-15s today or all the companies that made AR-15s in 2004? Or how about how many companies made AR-15s in 1993? I haveve been in the market a long time. And you, Sir, do not understand the market.

First of all, not all AR-15s (or AR-15 enthusiasts) are the same. For the record, I am not a fan of the rifle, but I have many friends who are. But people buy them for different reasons. I know you do not like to be overwhelmed with facts so I will just give you three variables you do not take into account:

* Like all non-high powered rifle calibers, the .223 is relatively cheap to buy. I can buy military surplus or FMJ ammo to go plink for about $11 per box of 20. (The AK is even cheaper at about $6-7/box of 20.) Compare this to .270 which starts at about $23 per box of 20. So these variants are good ways to keep up basic marksmanship without spending a whole lot of money (makes hunting more safe). Also the .223 is accurate to a longer ranger than .22 or the AKs 7.62x39.
* Some people like building them and customizing them to their preference.
* Some people use them for competition shooting and use specialized barrels and stocks.

Because of the variety of types of AR-15s and types of AR-15 shooters there is room in the market for all 33 manufacturers since they are not all competing for the same buyerâEU¦just a niche in the market. Your argument is based upon a simplistic understanding of economics and you lack to take into the particulars of the specific market you are attempting to analyze.

It's called perspective. And I read enough, and dealt with enough stupid peopleâEU¦

Too bad you have none. The gun community is a diverse and nuanced community, and no I am not blind to that fact. However, what you fail to recognize is I am not here to argue about the merits of the gun community as a whole. What I am here arguing is the merits of the law that you appear to support. I am making an argument that the AWB suffers from some serious flaws and will not solve any of our problems based upon the actual capabilities of the firearms as well as realworld observations of their use and misuse.

AlsoâEU¦I would reconsider calling people who can at least articulate a reason for their behavior (be it deep or shallow, ignorant or informed)âEU¦when you cannot articulate a cogent argument for where you want to draw the line on firearms regulation.

LOL... You just threw a bunch of data, and theories, that don't even begin to answer the question in any way or form.

Wow you sure got me! OhâEU¦waitâEU¦

Data: Scientifically speaking data are groups of facts that have been observed and from which we may draw conclusions.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Now a theory may also be just one proposed answer, especially when a phenomena is being studied early on. But considering that social scientists have been researching this for 30-40 yearsâEU¦the theories are more on the concrete side.

NopeâEU¦thought you had me there for a momentâEU¦but then your inability to judge the possible against the actual once again tripped you up and put your willful ignorance on full display! :)


It doesn't matter how many times you try to recycle the same ol' theory, I'll continue to trash it as unrealistic nonsense. âEU¦ This is called reality.

Reality is that you lack a grasp of history and knowledge of how politics works. Do you realize that Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, made open carry illegal? He also supported the 1994 AWB? How about Richard Nixon saying heâEUTMd like to get rid of all the guns?

If Dems like Feinstein, Schumer, and Obama were really smart and deft legislators and governorsâEU¦they would be engaging people like Colburn and actually working together to strengthen background checks. Instead they parade the victimâEUTMs families out and applaud Bloomberg as he puts ads out that come across as condescending to gun owners that only further solidify resistance to their proposals.

If the Democrats would calm down and not let their radicals lead on this issueâEU¦I think far more legislation would be possible. As it is, they way they are handling itâEU¦they are only increasing the NRAâEUTMs ability to resist.

....and Republicans are helping out how? they just seem to be sitting quietly, while ready to vote against anything that Democrats are proposing. So, nothing is getting done, because the other side refuses to work to find common solutions to the problem. And that's how things truly stand right now. It's a game to do nothing.

HmmmâEU¦you would again seem to have me. But, oh wait, you are talking out of your ass again and show you do not know what is going on.

In the Senate, background checks are faltering because people like Chuck Schumer want it all their own way. They do not want to listen to Republicans who say that certain things will not fly with the gun community. Two examples:
* Private sellers keeping records of transactions for up to 20 years as dealers are required to do. The problem here is when a dealer moves or goes out of business they turn their records over to the BATFE. The concern for private citizens is they do not have accountants and secretaries to keep track of this stuff. Things get lost in moving. There are numerous ways that people who lack the means of the elites in the government can be held liable for human error.
* Doing the sale through a licensed dealer.

Perhaps if the Dems worked with the Republicans instead of insisting on their way or the highwayâEU¦better laws would be passed.

[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) 2013-04-01 07:51:49 Reply

No, all you're telling me you is that you know that these massacres will continue, âEU¦

Again:
1) The publicâEUTMs perceptions of these features do not speak to their capabilities. This is a logical fallacy: appeal to ignorance.
2) You cannot articulate why these features cause harm to the public safety. Many of these features are useful and a few are necessary. For example barrel shrouds are necessary because they allow the shooter to grip the fore part of the rifle after firing multiple shots. This is not only true for the AR-15âEU¦but my .270 bolt action deer rifle and my wifeâEUTMs .44 Henry lever action. The only difference: the AR-15âEUTMs is called a barrel shroud and the other two rifles are called forestocks. ThatâEUTMs the necessary. Useful are pistol grips and M-4 style collapsible stocks. Pistol grips are useful for precision shooting because they provide a more stable for some people. M-4 style collapsible stocks allow for the shooter to adjust the stock to their individual reach. Therefore the same rifle or shotgun can be customized to myself, my wife, or a 12 year old learning to shoot. (Since the AR-15 and AK-47 are not high powered rifles, they are a good second step for a youth who is ready to shoot something bigger than a .22. Also, an AK or SKS would make an acceptable first deer rifle for youth hunters.) Other features such as bayonet lugs or grenade launchers do not have much, if any, practical application. Bayonets such as the SKS do keep the cleaning rod in place so thatâEUTMs something. The grenade launchers attached to AR-15s are actually flare launchers so if youâEUTMre lost in the woods I guess you can signal for help. So they have very little utilityâEU¦but are harmless.
3) These massacres will continue to happenâEU¦but guess what? AR-15s are not the gun of choice. The gun of choice, and capable of killing more people, are handguns. A ban on these rifles and/or features will not save lives. Furthermore, there is a move to incorporate explosives and chemical agents into these attacks. Something gun control does not address.
4) I do not hope my data shows anything. My data shows what it shows, and it is a reflection of reality whether you choose to believe it or not.

No. You have proven nothing. âEU¦

1) Hate to break it to youâEU¦but the internet has not changed things as you describe. To begin with: You still have to go through a licensed FFL dealer when buying from an onliner retailer or resaler! Now, someone may list something on CraigâEUTMs List or other classified style websitesâEU¦but they cannot just mail or ship the firearm to the buyer through the USPS or FedEx! So the internet has not changed buying guns as much as you seem to think.
1a) Secondly, the way in it which it has changed gun sales may actually be for the better. I went into Walmart last summer to buy some ammo. I was on my way to see a movie so I was dressed like a geek. The clerk was very adamant that I was buying the wrong kind of ammo for my AK. (It was the cheap Russian stuffâEU¦not good for the AR-15 because it is dirty and causes jamming; but an AK is reliable.) Now I had bought the same ammo from this guy a few times before, but I had been in my Air Force uniform so he assumed I knew what I was doing. The point being; if you were planning a spree shooting you would probably select an assault rifle. Now if you were buying it all through the internet a few things would not happen:
* You would most likely see the words Mil-Spec, Military Surplus, Military Grade, or Military whatever and gobble that ammo up thinking you were getting the super-duper killer ammo. When in reality you were buying stuff that would leave the most survivors. If you had to do face-to-face transactions, the clerk would be able to tell you are a new shooter and talk to you about the difference between ammo types. Oh yeahâEU¦this benefits him because the self-defense and hunting ammo is also more expensive as well as being more deadly!
* You would go in to buy a gun and in striking up a conversation, the dealer would ask you what you want the gun for. If you said anything other than target practice, they would most likely steer you towards a shotgun, handgun, or other type of rifle. Because if you say you want to hunt an AK would be a down sale, and a deer rifle would be a better price pointâEU¦and an AR-15 is not good to hunt with because it is so weak. So by going into the dealer you are going to get more educated on guns and make a more informed decision on killing power.
2) I have shown how competition does not work in this market as it does in other markets such as cars.
3) Furthermore, you are just thinking about how the market works. You lack any data or nuanced knowledge about it. On the other hand, I have been an observer in the gun market since before I was 18 and my dad would take me to gun shows and when he would buy guns. I have participated in it since I was 18, or 20 years ago. I know how the prices of guns have gone up despite the recession of 2000 and the financial crisis of 2008. The actual market does not act in accordance with your simplistic notions of supply and demand.
4) Guns do not depreciate in value like cars do. Sure some, like HiPoint, do because they are cheap guns. However, my AK is a Chinese variant (MAK-90) that I got for $180 in 1993. Today, my rifle is worth about $600-700 if I were to sell it. And that is used! AR-15s follow the same trajectory. As do SKSs.


âEU¦ I don't have any emotional attachment to this issue. âEU¦

Actually I think you are tremendously emotionally attached to this issue. The reasons:
* Why the need for name calling? You do not understand it, so you label a group of people (and you tried to call me out for stereotyping!)
* If you were not emotionally attached: why the willful lack of knowledge? I mean I have tried to engage you in discussion over the capabilities of these versus other firearms, and instead of gaining knowledge you want to dismiss it as âEU~technical babbleâEUTM.
* You have to tear me down on a human level because I disagree with you. I take this problem very seriously and have several deep human attachments to it. If you knew me as a person, and not merely some faceless poster challenging you, you would see just how foolish you are to make the claims that I am trivializing this phenomenon and/or do not take the problem seriously.


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) 2013-04-01 08:15:13 Reply

I also found video of Iron Claw!


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

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-06 12:25:38 Reply

Support and fully endorse the "National School Shield" Program.

Scarface
Scarface
  • Member since: Oct. 24, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-06 23:49:50 Reply

Pro-Gun people, answer me this: Would you be opposed to background checks before people own guns?

I don't care if someone has an assault rifle if I trust them. I think it's reasonable for a person to submit to a mental and criminal background check before they are allowed to purchase a fire arm. After they pass that, I wish them lots of fun and safety with their new AR. All I want is to make sure people with violent crimes on their record, history of violent behavior, drug abuse, any serious mental disorders, ect. are not allowed to own guns. Everyone else who can be trusted has the right to own a fire arm.

Opinions?


Rules of the BBS - Meme - Jeff
Thanks to Donut for the SIG!

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-07 03:18:32 Reply

At 4/6/13 11:49 PM, Scarface wrote: Pro-Gun people, answer me this: Would you be opposed to background checks before people own guns?

I don't care if someone has an assault rifle if I trust them. I think it's reasonable for a person to submit to a mental and criminal background check before they are allowed to purchase a fire arm. After they pass that, I wish them lots of fun and safety with their new AR. All I want is to make sure people with violent crimes on their record, history of violent behavior, drug abuse, any serious mental disorders, ect. are not allowed to own guns. Everyone else who can be trusted has the right to own a fire arm.

Opinions?

The problem people have with background checks actually has to do with national registration which could lead to government confiscation. That and some bills, have you doing background checks with waiting periods for personal friends just to lend them a gun while you are out hunting.

Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 51
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-07 18:50:23 Reply

At 4/7/13 03:18 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 4/6/13 11:49 PM, Scarface wrote: Pro-Gun people, answer me this: Would you be opposed to background checks before people own guns?

I don't care if someone has an assault rifle if I trust them. I think it's reasonable for a person to submit to a mental and criminal background check before they are allowed to purchase a fire arm. After they pass that, I wish them lots of fun and safety with their new AR. All I want is to make sure people with violent crimes on their record, history of violent behavior, drug abuse, any serious mental disorders, ect. are not allowed to own guns. Everyone else who can be trusted has the right to own a fire arm.

Opinions?
The problem people have with background checks actually has to do with national registration which could lead to government confiscation. That and some bills, have you doing background checks with waiting periods for personal friends just to lend them a gun while you are out hunting.

In other words, it just isn't gonna work as people find loopholes and workarounds to get there hands on not only guns but also other weapons too. No matter how politicians try the gun laws just won't be obayed and if that was the case then haven't they even learned to know better on not issuing anymore gun laws?

The answer is NO, why that answer is NO? Because there not learning what there supposed to be learning, there not doing what there supposed to be doing and that alone points out how dysfunctional many of those politicians have really become.

Many of the politicians in the United States of America have gone so corrupt to the point where they be more then willing to violate the nation's 2nd amendment rights and those kind of politicians could very well be in some special interest group that has sheer intent to destroy what isn't meant to be destroyed, I wouldn't even doubt that some of them even go against Native American rights too and that's just real sad.

As for other nations with there own gun laws, they won't work either, criminals will still get there hands on such weapons, nations like Canada and the United Kingdom should of known better to let the locals be able to defend for themselves but nooooooo, all they worry about is controlling there own citizens when the real problems are already plaguing there nations like disease.

Too much Gun Control will only cause uprisings, even to the point where some people within there own goverments will decide to not follow along anymore.

Osyris
Osyris
  • Member since: Aug. 19, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-07 19:27:45 Reply

I still don't see how background checks should even pose a question to the 2nd amendment. It's almost common sense for me to keep criminals and the mentally ill from buying a weapon.


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) 2013-04-08 00:57:12 Reply

At 4/7/13 07:27 PM, Osyris wrote: I still don't see how background checks should even pose a question to the 2nd amendment. It's almost common sense for me to keep criminals and the mentally ill from buying a weapon.

They are more than background checks. A national registry of guns, needing a background check to have another person fire off a magazine at the range or to even touch your rifle. It's basically what they did in new zealand with their registry. It would have to be transferred and registered to each person that it goes to.

It also allows for easy mass confiscation, and don't give me that shit that nobody is coming to take your guns.

An assault weapons ban is exactly that.....and that is what they are doing now.


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-08 06:51:13 Reply

They are more than background checks. A national registry of guns, needing a background check to have another person fire off a magazine at the range or to even touch your rifle. It's basically what they did in new zealand with their registry. It would have to be transferred and registered to each person that it goes to.

It also allows for easy mass confiscation, and don't give me that shit that nobody is coming to take your guns.

An assault weapons ban is exactly that.....and that is what they are doing now.

This, but a certain someone ignored the points. Because they have been beaten down in everything factual by a certain other poster...

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-08 07:22:16 Reply

At 4/8/13 06:51 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
This, but a certain someone ignored the points. Because they have been beaten down in everything factual by a certain other poster...

but Gar does have a point .

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-08 07:26:11 Reply

At 4/8/13 07:22 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 4/8/13 06:51 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
This, but a certain someone ignored the points. Because they have been beaten down in everything factual by a certain other poster...
but Gar does have a point .

You misunderstood me entirely Tony I was talking about crazy in his response.

UK has all sorts of problems as well as Canada and he has totally disregarded the different socioeconomic factors that have been discussed in length. Or the fact that if we removed just one (small) group our gun violence drops dramatically.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-08 07:42:38 Reply

At 4/8/13 07:26 AM, Ceratisa wrote: You misunderstood me entirely Tony I was talking about crazy in his response.

oh sorry its 6AM here and I haven't had coffee...

Scarface
Scarface
  • Member since: Oct. 24, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-09 06:52:18 Reply

At 4/8/13 12:57 AM, thegarbear14 wrote:
At 4/7/13 07:27 PM, Osyris wrote: I still don't see how background checks should even pose a question to the 2nd amendment. It's almost common sense for me to keep criminals and the mentally ill from buying a weapon.
They are more than background checks. A national registry of guns, needing a background check to have another person fire off a magazine at the range or to even touch your rifle. It's basically what they did in new zealand with their registry. It would have to be transferred and registered to each person that it goes to.

It also allows for easy mass confiscation, and don't give me that shit that nobody is coming to take your guns.

An assault weapons ban is exactly that.....and that is what they are doing now.

IMO if we do background checks, though, there's no need for confiscations.

Is it still possible for people to illegally obtain guns who shouldn't have them? Yes. I never said this would end all problems. However, if there was a certainty that your guns wouldn't be confiscated, what would be the problem with a background check?

It's essentially the same as taking a driving test before you're allowed to get your license. If you're too dangerous with that responsibility, you don't get it. If you can be trusted, go right ahead.


Rules of the BBS - Meme - Jeff
Thanks to Donut for the SIG!

BBS Signature
MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-09 07:31:28 Reply

At 4/6/13 12:25 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Support and fully endorse the "National School Shield" Program.

so basically

The number of american schools multiplied by The cost of having a security guard equals fuck loads of money to be taxed on everyone...

sounds good.


my love of material goods is far greater than my love of food

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-09 10:03:02 Reply

At 4/9/13 07:31 AM, MrPercie wrote: The number of american schools multiplied by The cost of having a security guard equals fuck loads of money to be taxed on everyone...

sounds good.

or as I have proposed put two Police officers in the school in a 8 hour protection detail seeing as a school day on national average for public school is 6.7 hoursish and you add one hour at the begging and end of of the school day (Before school and after school activities) and if you you put the local force on a shifting schedule for it.

its perfectly resonable seeing as the police force seems to waste our tax money why not put them to someactual use.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-09 10:39:33 Reply

You know why you don't hear about good guys stopping mass shootings right? Cause the mass shooting didn't get to happen.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-10 10:52:32 Reply

Watching the CSPAN gun legislation in the senate so far its a bunch of democrats with plasterboards of victims trying to get a emotional vote. Just wait till Rand Paul gets in there a filibuster.

Everyone knows its not a gun problem its social problems

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-10 12:24:19 Reply

here we go the big Senate showdown.

TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 45
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-10 20:26:53 Reply

Will Gun Control and Gun Insurance really solve the problems in America?

Wouldn't Gun Insurance just make it so only the Rich could afford Guns?


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

Baby-Bottle-Bob
Baby-Bottle-Bob
  • Member since: Feb. 29, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-11 16:46:30 Reply

yeah lets not cure crazy people, lets just take away all the guns. sounds like a plan


9

BBS Signature
Ononymous
Ononymous
  • Member since: Nov. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-11 18:06:18 Reply

At 4/9/13 10:39 AM, Ceratisa wrote: You know why you don't hear about good guys stopping mass shootings right? Cause the mass shooting didn't get to happen.

And because all spree killers research areas where people are not allowed to carry firearms and commit their crimes there.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-04-11 18:24:34 Reply

At 4/10/13 08:26 PM, TheKlown wrote: Will Gun Control and Gun Insurance really solve the problems in America?

Wouldn't Gun Insurance just make it so only the Rich could afford Guns?

yeah but unfortunately Insurance companies REJECTED the idea. just google it.