Be a Supporter!

We Need Gun Control

  • 38,723 Views
  • 1,384 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 25th, 2012 @ 09:59 PM Reply

At 8/25/12 02:29 PM, naronic wrote: ... almost as blatantly fallacious as your previous statement about home depot Bob the Killer tools.

You know what, I think I'll help you out. Read the following books:

Biohazard by Ken Alibek (a former Doctor-Colonel in the USSR's Biological unit of their Army).

Plague Wars by Tom Mangold & Jeff Goldberg.

Demon in the Freezer by Richard Preston. Pay very close attention in the epilogue to how easy it is to do the thing the Australians have warned against, when he travels to St Louis University School of Medicine.

Then there is the Anarchist Cookbook and The Poor Man's James Bond written by the same nutjob...who happens to be able to do the shit he writes about.

Aum Shinrikyo cult would also make an interesting read. As well as the Rajneeshee cult.

Now judging by your age and your ability to put words in a sentence properly I would guess that you are a college freshman. Taking introductory and survey classes. Now if one of these courses are chemistry or biology go ask the professor how cheap and easy it is to make really bad stuff from stuff bought at Lowe's. If it's biology ask how cheap and easy it would be to make a makeshift bioreactor. (HINT: tell them you're asking for a class project on WMDs and terrorism...and by no means ask about specific chemicals.)

And if you have access to JSTOR or equivalent Collegiate Library search engine, these will give you more than raw data and ancedotal evidence such as you've been linking to. I've posted articles going back and forth arguing about what the numbers mean...so you can get a balanced overview of the real academic debate and not what you read in papers. Enjoy! :)

Gun Control Journal Articles

Kellermann, Arthur, and DT Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, June 12, 1986, Vol. 314 No. 24, pp. 1557-60.

_____ et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1., pp. 150-87.

_____, and Michael Hogan, "National case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership," Social Problems, May, 1999, Vol. 46 Iss. 2, pp. 275-93.

Concealed Carry Journal Articles
Kovandzic, Marvell and Vieraitis, "The Impact of 'Shall-Issue' Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates," Homicide Studies (November 2005, pp. 292-323).

Ayres and Donohue, Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis (tables) Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2002)

_________, Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws: A Case Study of Statistics, Standards of Proof and Public Policy, 1 American Law and Economics Review 436 (1999).

Lott, John R. Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue, Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 247 (September 1, 1999).

Bartley and Cohen, The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis, Economic Inquiry (April 1998).

Benson and Mast, Privately Produced General Deterrence, The Journal of Law and Economics (October 2001).

Dezhbakhsh and Rubin, The Effect of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime: Beyond the Dummy Variables, Working Paper (January 1999).

Harrison, Kennison, and Macedon, Crime and Concealed Gun Laws: A Reconsideration, (April 2000).

Helland and Tabarrok, Using Placebo Laws to Test "More Guns, Less Crime," (January 2004).

Hood and Neely, Packin' in the Hood?: Examining Assumptions of Concealed-Carry Research, Social Science Quarterly, Volume 81, Number 2 (June, 2000).

Kovandzic and Marvell, Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?, published in July issue of Criminology and Public Policy.

Ludwig, Jens Otto, Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data, Working Paper (May 5, 1998).

Lott and Whitley, A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data: A Response, (July 1, 2002).


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

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 12:53 AM Reply

What you said. My point is you are wrong in saying this because the ease of acquiring a gun is not significantly harder (you know...the opposite of easier) today compared to the 1980s. How am I telling you the wrong argument if I am responding to a direct quote of yours? I really want to know what it is I am misrepresenting...and how I am misrepresenting it. Here are the definitions of lenient and exponential. You will need them later.
Now I'm going to deconstruct this grammatically.

Oh for f*cks sake.
"If you put this all together you get the following interpretation of what you said: "that it is harder and exponentially more controlled today than it was in the 1980s.""

I said this because that, what you just wrote above, is what I meant. What exactly were you trying to imply was the disconnect here? Get off this semantic deconstruction crap or quit wasting my time with these snarky useless remarks.

THAT GUN CONTROL (ie: Brady Bill or various bans) DOES NOT MAKE CRIME RATES, INCLUDING GUN CRIME, GO DOWN IS A CORE ARGUMENT I MAKE.

This is not the core counter argument I'm trying to make, you blew up at a 2 line quote without even the slightest hint of a logical statement caste consideration.

My main responses, goes to these quotes below.

"* States with CCW during the 1990s and first decade of the 2000s had a drop in crime rates that was larger than the national average."
"But I agree, gun bans would do much at this point, but neither will guns themselves.
Then you are wrong. Simply wrong. The scientific data over the past 30 years shows that civilians with guns can reduce crime."

I actually disproved this in my latest post, why don't you scroll up.

I pointed out that in my experience the Brady Bill set-up a FBI background check and in the states I have lived in and bought handguns in has had the unintended effect of removing local gun control laws (that had been in place since before the 1980s) that were more restrictive than the Brady Bill.

And you gave no link which I have so asked for from that statement up until now. If you're so smart and savvy on this subject then why can't you make a freaking link to something that would benefit your argument? Unless you lack one of course.

And where did I say that it was not? And how in the hell is that relevant to anything we're talking about?

Just reinforcing the notion that almost anything we could've encountered in the 80's is still in effect today.

And knowledge would be your friend.

Well you know what I meant, dang you're just going for anything that sticks to the wall aren't you?

You know what, I think I'll help you out. Read the following books

Is this it? You're not even going to attempt to respond to the information i posted that absolutely destroyed one of the central arguments to pro gunners? I proved with actual linking to statistics and sources that guns or concealed carry do not effect the overall health of a state in any considerable way. I used your own argument about permits against you so easily that you had to create a semantic disconnect that wasn't even flipping there just to give you some leverage and harm my character. And now you have nothing but insults to throw at me, very stupid ones at that "stand in front of your anti-idiot ray now and destroy you some ignorance". Some advice, don't try to throw insults, your parents lied to you, you have no talent or skill in this field.

I know you can't see it now but I'm clapping my hands, I'd honestly like to know how I'm so ignorant if I've spent all this time trying to engage you on an adult level with actual sources to back up my facts and you've been pot shotting me with lame pin prick insults, and unfounded anecdotal evidence.

You can go back over my posts, I have a lot of links to read: non biased sources. You haven't even responded to my last biggest point. But alas, I can't wait for you to attempt to turn this around, make it an attack on my character, copy paste more bullshit pseudo-intellectual quotes, and extrapolate on about what or what I didn't say about gun leniency back in the 80's with differential calculus and advanced quote sequencing with a dictionary.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 08:24 AM Reply

At 8/26/12 12:53 AM, naronic wrote: Then you are wrong. Simply wrong. The scientific data over the past 30 years shows that civilians with guns can reduce crime."

I actually disproved this in my latest post, why don't you scroll up.

Actually no you didn't. What you linked to raw, descriptive statistics which don't really prove anything without looking at any kind of statistical analysis such as pearson's r or at least a standard deviation. It may indicate something...but they lack any kind of analyitical function.


And you gave no link which I have so asked for from that statement up until now. If you're so smart and savvy on this subject then why can't you make a freaking link to something that would benefit your argument? Unless you lack one of course.

And as I've said before the stuff I read are journal articles and books. So unless you've got access to JSTOR (or a university library) and/or are willing to pay out the money to buy the articles and books...you're not going to be able to link to the stuff that informs my opinion.

Furthermore, the stuff I would like to (if it were feasible) would provide you with the academic and scientific evidence your links lack.


And knowledge would be your friend.
Well you know what I meant, dang you're just going for anything that sticks to the wall aren't you?

Nope, just trying to educate you because I really don't think you know what you meant.


You know what, I think I'll help you out. Read the following books
Is this it? You're not even going to attempt to respond to the information i posted that absolutely destroyed one of the central arguments to pro gunners? I proved with actual linking to statistics and sources that guns or concealed carry do not effect the overall health of a state in any considerable way.

Again...no you did not. You linked to raw stats that while on the surface may appear to prove a point to someone without a background in the social sciences and their related statistical methodology...do not prove anything.


I know you can't see it now but I'm clapping my hands, I'd honestly like to know how I'm so ignorant if I've spent all this time trying to engage you on an adult level with actual sources to back up my facts and you've been pot shotting me with lame pin prick insults, and unfounded anecdotal evidence.

Honestly dude...nothing I have said (beyond my own personal experience) that includes stats really qualifies as anecdotal evidence.


You can go back over my posts, I have a lot of links to read: non biased sources. You haven't even responded to my last biggest point.

Please don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You linked to shit that doesn't say what you think it does. Also, this is not an academic BBS...so there is not a high bar to meet in the proof area. I mean most ppl link to open sources like newspaper articles and raw stats (like you did). The real academic sources require subscriptions and accounts to access. So NG does not allow for the high standard you set (and think you achieve).

I know you can't see it...but you've lost.


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

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 10:02 AM Reply

Actually no you didn't. What you linked to raw, descriptive statistics which don't really prove anything without looking at any kind of statistical analysis such as pearson's r or at least a standard deviation. It may indicate something...but they lack any kind of analyitical function.

Are you kidding me? What I posted was direct evidence of gun availability over crime stats, a direct response to

"* States with CCW during the 1990s and first decade of the 2000s had a drop in crime rates that was larger than the national average."
"But I agree, gun bans would do much at this point, but neither will guns themselves.
Then you are wrong. Simply wrong. The scientific data over the past 30 years shows that civilians with guns can reduce crime."

Their also a hell of a lot better than nothing at all, which is what you used to defend your arguments.
So tell me, why doesn't this personified debunk hurt your argument.

And as I've said before the stuff I read are journal articles and books. So unless you've got access to JSTOR (or a university library) and/or are willing to pay out the money to buy the articles and books...you're not going to be able to link to the stuff that informs my opinion.
Furthermore, the stuff I would like to (if it were feasible) would provide you with the academic and scientific evidence your links lack.

Google has a knack for finding research and studies on things, and so far I cant find any evidence of your claims anywhere. It's not like I don't try, I just don't find them, and there's no reason why I should take your word for it since I've debunked your words before.

You're trying to parry a rather straight forward question with, well I could've, would've if it were feasible. Which I find to be neither intellectually stimulating or rather convincing. I also know this is hard for you to believe, but a social science hypothesis, especially one gathered from a biased website, can be biased too. That's why I consider raw data from raw websites to be more useful in an argument because it tells it how it is and doesn't form alliances, and as you just demonstrated, you can't argue against it.

And what's even crazier is had the stats been in your favor, you wouldn't be trying to mop them aside, you'd be using them the exact same way I'm using them now. You can't simply claim a piece of evidence is irrelevant, especially when it's as cut and dry as statistics that torch most of your argument. Tell you what, if you're so hell bent on trying to embarrassingly sweep this under the covers, then tell me some social science evidence that would explain these statistics.

Please don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You linked to shit that doesn't say what you think it does.

Then what does it say? Honestly I'd like to know. I didn't set the bar high for NG, I simply argued the way I normally argue. I establish a sound thesis, I back it up with data and sometimes the occasional thought experiment, and I defend against any counter argument. And no, real academic sources require you to be able to type site:gov, org, or edu into the search bar above you.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 10:25 AM Reply

At 8/25/12 04:18 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually this is a fundamental error that you make. There are big differences between the US and those four countries:

I wasn't saying that there weren't differences. I was saying that the fundamental values and cultures are quite similar.

* Ethnolinguistic Factionalization:

First, the US isn't so much more diverse than the other countries (save Japan). Germany, France, and the UK have extremely large non-white populations. Also, seeing as the vast majority of all crimes (including gun crimes) in the US are committed against a person the same race as the perpetrator shows that this likely has little effect on gun violence as a whole.


* Even within the majority group in the US there are subgroups such as rural and urban.

And these groups don't exist in every developed society that is wealthy enough for the small cities and outskirts to prosper?


* We also have two major groups that live outside the mainstream of society: poor, urban blacks and illegal hispanic immigrants. We also have a very porous border that allows the second group to transport narcotics, guns and humans across national lines with ease. Once here those people live in the shadows fearful of the police which allows them to be used and abused by criminal cartels.

None of these are unique to the US. Germany has a large population of poor Turks (Turkey turks, not racial Turks), UK has a large population of poor blacks and central asians, and France has a large destitute Muslim/arabic population. We have a pourous border with Mexico. UK, Ger, and FR, have easy pathways to drug havens like Eastern Europe, All of Africa, and the Middle East. I really doubt that the poor and downtrodden in Europe have any higher opinion of the police than our downtrodden do.


* Japan being Asian has very different cultural norms, values and mores from the US.

Having lived over there, I can tell you that, while Japan does have fairly different set of cultural traditions, the modern life of the Japanese people is actually very similar to the rest of the developed world.

Now, I don't deny that these differences can account for some difference. But we're not talknig about a small difference here, we're talking about over tenfold the amount of gun deaths. None of these problems is enough to account for such a disparity, even if it were at the worst possible case and combined with the other 3 issues.

Furthermore, shootings like Colorado are highly sensationalizied in the media but exceedingly rare...but yet they get the attention.

I don't worry about such violence (though I do have to admit both of the times I went to the movie there were moments were I peeked to the front). Such mass killings are like mass terrorism. They are big and scary, but they're quite rare and very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent. The real issue is the small stuff: the heat of the moment shootings and the common street violence. These ones are much more common and much more preventable.

grevantime
grevantime
  • Member since: Jun. 1, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Artist
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 01:55 PM Reply

Here's my weight in on the right to bear arms:

We Need Gun Control

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 05:22 PM Reply

At 8/26/12 10:02 AM, naronic wrote:
Actually no you didn't. What you linked to raw, descriptive statistics which don't really prove anything without looking at any kind of statistical analysis such as pearson's r or at least a standard deviation. It may indicate something...but they lack any kind of analyitical function.
Are you kidding me? What I posted was direct evidence of gun availability over crime stats, a direct response to

Nope, not kidding you. And while what you posted was good enough for a freshman or sophmore poli sci/sociology/criminology program...it would not be good enough for an uperclassman course where you are expected to perfom statistical analysis which will yield the scientific conclusions you're seeking.

See what you link to are Descriptive Statistics. And no I am not playing a sematic game here but attempting to teach you (and give you a leg up if you are some sort of social sciences major) about what you will be learning your Jr year of college when you take methodolgy.

These differ from inferential in that descriptive statistics are simply describing the data set. They are a summary, but offer no real insight into what trends are over time or any kind of causal or even correlation. That they do not contradict or confirm what you think they do; I ignored most of your links.

Instead I tried to steer you towards a site that would provide links to actual academic journal articles that would get around the need to have access to a university library. So as not to make you think that I was sending you to a NRA proxy where all you would get was half-truths and editorializing...I admited to guncite.com's inherient bias.

In academic discourse, much less NG posting, this is perfectly acceptable in an argument. Especially on NG where even a biased site can help get around pesky things such as a subscription. While not every link on guncite.com may still be active or just link to an abstract...it will give you the ability to find it in JSTOR or using google scholar (which I've found not to be all that useful).

Instead you did not want to concede to the validity of my link which (when you consider the sources I was attempting to direct you to) is superior to yours. You cite wikipedia (as did I), news articles and raw/descriptive statistics. I was attempting to get you to sources/papers from:

New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Social Problems, Homicide Studies, Stanford Law Review, American Law and Economics Review, The Journal of Law and Economics, Social Science Quarterly and Criminology and Public Policy.

These are not biased and represent scientific and academic scholarship. As an added bonus that link would've given you links to scholars that argue against the findings of Lott and Kleck which tend to be better for the pro-gun side.

So your protestations about me not looking at your sources...while you did not want to follow the rabbit hole I laid out for you...are exceptionally hypocritcal.

But now I have given you, last night, sources that describe the nature of the sample population (your statistics) and trends over time with more complete data sets.

So no...you do not have superior facts, stats or arguments. But you do have a path to educate yourself about the issue that will far exceed the average.

And I'm actually here to help. You've admitted you don't know about the science behind the different types of bullets and how guns work. If you have any questions, because often things can be counter-intutitive to those who are ignorant about guns, please PM me and I'll answer and direct you to good sources.


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

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 05:34 PM Reply

At 8/26/12 05:22 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 8/26/12 10:02 AM, naronic wrote:
And I'm actually here to help. You've admitted you don't know about the science behind the different types of bullets and how guns work. If you have any questions, because often things can be counter-intutitive to those who are ignorant about guns, please PM me and I'll answer and direct you to good sources.

Alright, for now I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I won't discriminate and will take a look at descriptive statistics as well as some books on the subject. Although I still believe my links have some relevance, I'll admit as I did that I don't know everything about the in and out's of guns, only enough to make a point about their control.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 05:37 PM Reply

At 8/26/12 10:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote: And these groups don't exist in every developed society that is wealthy enough for the small cities and outskirts to prosper?

Yes and no. In Europe they tend to be racially homogenous. Now there are some exceptions such as the Algerians in France who are denied citizenship and are a second class not unlike illegals in the US.

None of these are unique to the US. ...

Now this I have to question, most demographics I've seen show those countries as having 90%+ for their largest ethnic group/majority. In the US, subtracting for hispanics in the white majority, the largest majority race is about 63%. Then you have blacks and hispanics both at above 10% making them sizable minorities...that don't like each other very much.

I don't worry about such violence (though I do have to admit both of the times I went to the movie there were moments were I peeked to the front). Such mass killings are like mass terrorism. They are big and scary, but they're quite rare and very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent. The real issue is the small stuff: the heat of the moment shootings and the common street violence. These ones are much more common and much more preventable.

I totally agree. The only thing is I do believe mass shootings are non-political acts of terrorism.


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

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 06:12 PM Reply

At 8/26/12 05:37 PM, TheMason wrote: I totally agree. The only thing is I do believe mass shootings are non-political acts of terrorism.

EEEHhhh... not really, you see, for something to be an act of terrorism it has to occur for the sole purpose of intimidating a particular group of people. The recent mass shootings concerning psychopaths such as James Holmes were indeed acts of violence, but unprovoked and random. Therefore some mass shootings can be acts of terrorism but most are just multiple accounts of unprovoked murder.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 10:58 PM Reply

At 8/26/12 05:37 PM, TheMason wrote: None of these are unique to the US. ...

Now this I have to question, most demographics I've seen show those countries as having 90%+ for their largest ethnic group/majority. In the US, subtracting for hispanics in the white majority, the largest majority race is about 63%. Then you have blacks and hispanics both at above 10% making them sizable minorities...that don't like each other very much.

Even then. The 27 some percent difference in size of the majority race hardly accounts for a big jump, let alone a tenfold one. Also, it doesn't take into account that most gun crimes are committed within the perpetrator's race. (black on black, white on white, hispanic on hispanic, and so on)

I totally agree. The only thing is I do believe mass shootings are non-political acts of terrorism.

The nutball at the Family whatever counsel in DC shows that these can be political, but most often they are not. People wanting to make a violent political message often want a bigger show, thus leading to the use of chemical or biological weapons, or explosives. I would also raise that racially motivated mass shootings have a political element to them, but that is getting a little off topic.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 09:23 AM Reply

What is a gun without any cartridges , but a club...a fancy club, but still a club.

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-ammo-what-am mo-dhs-takes-unprecedented-step-of-redacting-mass-ammunition -purchase.aspx?contributor=Mac+Slavo&article=4018228488G1002 0&redirect=False

Seems your Dept of Homeland Control, wants to make sure they have lots of bullets.
While getting government to restrict & track the sale of bullets to gun owners.

So stock up slowly... while you still can ~;p


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 09:54 PM Reply

At 8/26/12 06:12 PM, naronic wrote:
At 8/26/12 05:37 PM, TheMason wrote: I totally agree. The only thing is I do believe mass shootings are non-political acts of terrorism.
EEEHhhh... not really, you see, for something to be an act of terrorism it has to occur for the sole purpose of intimidating a particular group of people.

*sigh* Here we go again...

Before 9/11 terrorism had over 432 different definitons combining about 20 different things that different scholars, NGOs and government agencies combined in various ways. However, the three most common motivations for terrorism tend to be: political, economic or military.

On the other hand I see trends with Columbine, VT and now Aurora that show that there may be such a thing as sociological terrorism. That is when a person feels either alienated or apart from society and thus oppressed. They reach a breaking point where they see their only course of action to be to lash out at the society that has hurt them. Who they are trying to intimidate and/or hurt are gatherings of people who represent something about society that they primarily hold responsible for their plight. This is why the Columbine and VT shooters selected their schools. As for Holmes, I'm not sure why he selected The Dark Knight Rises but it is obvious by his hair, Joker references, etc that he specifically targeted this group of people (not neccessarily individuals). I am curious what his motivations are.

As for my sources; let's not dance again. I will find sources to back me up (I just don't want to dig up my copy of Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind as well as all the other books and journal articles I've read and cited in numerous undergrad and grad papers as well as several briefings I've given in the USAF), and I will win the operationalization battle.

Instead, why do you ponder the question of whether or not we can operationalize the concept of terrorism beyond the traditional realms of the political, economic and military...and use it to describe human behavior that is motivated by sociological and/or psychological triggers.


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

BBS Signature
Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 10:48 PM Reply

You'll have to forgive me, as I am mostly naive when it comes to firearms. So, my opinion will be quite simplistic - and I won't be able to go as in-depth as some of the other users in this discussion. However, I do have a general outlook on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

Firstly, I do believe in the right for individuals to have the means to protect themselves (and hunt, hobby with, etc.) with firearms. A land without weapons is far, far less safe than one with weapons everywhere. So, responsible citizens should be allowed to purchase and trade guns.

With this, there must be a limit set. What I have tried to boil it down to is: automatic guns should NOT be allowed on the street (except in the possession of law enforcement, and a state militia). I understand that there are certain benefits that come with having assault rifles, but being able to empty dozens of rounds in such a short amount of time and with such power is entirely unnecessary. Even semi-automatic assault rifles are over the top. Basically, any military grade weapon belongs in the military. But, I have no problem with shotguns, pistols, and bolt-action rifles in the possession of citizens.

On the flip side, the process to purchase a firearm should be intense and thorough. Convicted felons of violent crimes should not be allowed them. Also, people with a history of mental issues should not be given anything more powerful than a pistol after being cleared by a doctor. I would also like to see the minimal age requirement bumped up.

- - - -

P.S: I think it might be interesting to see what would happen if gun ownership was a federal requirement.

http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-ownership-mandatory-all-hous eholds-1418143.html


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 10:54 PM Reply

At 8/27/12 09:54 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 8/26/12 06:12 PM, naronic wrote:
At 8/26/12 05:37 PM, TheMason wrote: I totally agree. The only thing is I do believe mass shootings are non-political acts of terrorism.
EEEHhhh... not really, you see, for something to be an act of terrorism it has to occur for the sole purpose of intimidating a particular group of people.
Instead, why do you ponder the question of whether or not we can operationalize the concept of terrorism beyond the traditional realms of the political, economic and military...and use it to describe human behavior that is motivated by sociological and/or psychological triggers.

Meh, you can have this one as I'm not really fond of semantic slap fights. Mostly I'm simply attracted to straight forward definitions of words.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 11:05 PM Reply

At 8/27/12 09:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Before 9/11 terrorism had over 432 different definitons combining about 20 different things that different scholars, NGOs and government agencies combined in various ways.

Even now terrorism can mean a multitude of different things.

The most common definition, as well as the legal definition, is usually limited to two things: the use of WMDs on a civilian population and/or any act of mass violence against civilians for an intended political goal.

Terrorism is used in numerous other colloquial methods as well:
In the 1960s, LBJ referred to the KKK as terrorists.
Many use it to refer to any act of mass violence against civilians (see the characterizations of the DC Sniper)
Some states with large gang problems have enacted statutes aimed at fighting the "terrorism" of street gangs

The bonds between all of these definitions are the intentional targetting of civilians, the extremely indiscriminate nature of the crimes, and the actual intent to create mass fear (or the willfull blindness to the almost certain mass fear that would result from such an act.

Shortly after 9/11 a guy in the Midwest (I think it was Oklahoma, but I cannot remember and am to lazy too look up this minor detail) who was disgruntled with how Countrywide Insurance was handling a claim of his left a message on their answering machine saying he shipped anthrax to them in the mail. This resulted in the Dallas (again not sure) office being closed and a major scare in the area. His motive was revenge, not politics, but he was convicted of making a threat of terrorism.

Political motives makes something more likely to be "terrorism" but it is not a requirement.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 06:24 AM Reply

At 8/27/12 10:54 PM, naronic wrote: Meh, you can have this one as I'm not really fond of semantic slap fights. Mostly I'm simply attracted to straight forward definitions of words.

Then don't venture into the social sciences, because operationalizing terms (especially ones as complex, controversial and changing as terrorism) is a huge part of it once you start actually doing the social science part of it in the upper undergraduate levels...and then on the graduate level. :)


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

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 09:15 AM Reply

At 8/27/12 10:48 PM, Silverdust wrote

With this, there must be a limit set. What I have tried to boil it down to is: automatic guns should NOT be allowed on the street (except in the possession of law enforcement, and a state militia). :

;;;;
IF the recent Empire State building murder & subsiquent shooting of the murderer & wounding of at least 9 civilians all by police officer fire...tells me Police officers shouldn't have semi or automatic weapons either !
At least not until the show they have a marksman status.

Having specially trained officers available with automatic weapons, sure I can see a reason for that...a beat cop with the ability to take out multiple innocents, while shooting at 1 individual....I don't see that as being very smart !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Jaketheclonetrooper
Jaketheclonetrooper
  • Member since: Mar. 23, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 09:20 AM Reply

So why deny an easy and effective means of self defense from those who would otherwise be defenseless?

Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 09:26 AM Reply

At 8/28/12 09:15 AM, morefngdbs wrote: At 8/27/12 10:48 PM, Silverdust wrote
With this, there must be a limit set. What I have tried to boil it down to is: automatic guns should NOT be allowed on the street (except in the possession of law enforcement, and a state militia). :
;;;;
IF the recent Empire State building murder & subsiquent shooting of the murderer & wounding of at least 9 civilians all by police officer fire...tells me Police officers shouldn't have semi or automatic weapons either !
At least not until the show they have a marksman status.

Having specially trained officers available with automatic weapons, sure I can see a reason for that...a beat cop with the ability to take out multiple innocents, while shooting at 1 individual....I don't see that as being very smart !

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean the average, local police officer. By law enforcement, I really meant special units such as SWAT. Yeah, I agree that an everyday cop having an assault rifle would be disastrous.


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 11:33 AM Reply

At 8/28/12 09:20 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: So why deny an easy and effective means of self defense from those who would otherwise be defenseless?

Yes, cause most Americans have the wherewithall to see a dangerous situation, pull out their gun, turn off the safety, points it and use it to defend themselves before the aggressor, who already has their gun out and safety off, does anything...

And I can run a 2 minute mile.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 07:52 PM Reply

At 8/27/12 10:48 PM, Silverdust wrote: With this, there must be a limit set. What I have tried to boil it down to is: automatic guns should NOT be allowed on the street (except in the possession of law enforcement, and a state militia). I understand that there are certain benefits that come with having assault rifles, but being able to empty dozens of rounds in such a short amount of time and with such power is entirely unnecessary. Even semi-automatic assault rifles are over the top. Basically, any military grade weapon belongs in the military. But, I have no problem with shotguns, pistols, and bolt-action rifles in the possession of citizens.

A few things, in a number form:

1. Automatic weapons are a huge pain to obtain legally, and cost a huge amount of money
2. Automatic fire is extremely ineffective, although burst firing is just plain havoc.
3. There is no such thing as a purely semi-automatic Assault Rifle.
4. Those "assault rifles" are nothing more then a sleek looking paint job and some aesthetic pieces that don't add much
5. There is nearly zero difference between "military grade" and a normal semi-automatic, besides paint job.
6. Hunting rifles are made to maximize killing potential, "military grade," not so much.

On the flip side, the process to purchase a firearm should be intense and thorough. Convicted felons of violent crimes should not be allowed them. Also, people with a history of mental issues should not be given anything more powerful than a pistol after being cleared by a doctor. I would also like to see the minimal age requirement bumped up.

I'm sorry, but this, in addition to what you have stated before, pretty much proves you have absolutely anything beyond a rudimentary understanding of firearm laws and firearms.

- - - -

P.S: I think it might be interesting to see what would happen if gun ownership was a federal requirement.

http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-ownership-mandatory-all-hous eholds-1418143.html

All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 08:52 PM Reply

At 8/28/12 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 8/28/12 09:20 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: So why deny an easy and effective means of self defense from those who would otherwise be defenseless?
Yes, cause most Americans have the wherewithall to see a dangerous situation, pull out their gun, turn off the safety, points it and use it to defend themselves before the aggressor, who already has their gun out and safety off, does anything...

Here's one thing, no responsible self-defense advocate/trainer would ever say that a person who has already been drawn down on by an assailant armed with a gun (or a knife w/in 21 feet) should pull their weapon. In those cases, just hand over the money in the register or your wallet or your jewelry. You've lost.

And yes I do think most Americans with a CCW permit would have the wherewithall to make such an appraisal considering the majority of states w/CCW require such training.


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

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 10:02 PM Reply

At 8/28/12 08:52 PM, TheMason wrote: require such training.

Speaking of, all people should have gun safety training before being able to purchase a gun. Won't necessarily help onthe shootings issue, but can really help with the accidents.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 10:17 PM Reply

At 8/28/12 10:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 8/28/12 08:52 PM, TheMason wrote: require such training.
Speaking of, all people should have gun safety training before being able to purchase a gun. Won't necessarily help onthe shootings issue, but can really help with the accidents.

That I disagree with. As I've posted (and sourced) before, since 1904 when we started keeping stats, accidental GSWs and fatalities have dropped by about 94%. In terms of accidental death it comes in right before the category: "All Others" so it barely qualifies as a category by itself for accidental death. Furthermore, more people die per year from accidents related to walking than through firearms.

Now I know you're probably saying that it will help to some degree...and if it saves just one life it's worth it! But that thinking is flawed. To make such a requirement will take money, manhours and other resources to deliver it and enforce it. That is money, manhours and resources taken away from other things that demand more attention and would probably save more lives such as road/bridge/infrastructure repair (cars being by far the most deadly consumer product available) or even social programs like WIC.

So yeah...at first blush what you suggest sounds reasonable and logical and easy...but from a public policy perspective is highly irresponsible and wasteful.


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

BBS Signature
Jaketheclonetrooper
Jaketheclonetrooper
  • Member since: Mar. 23, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 03:33 AM Reply

At 8/28/12 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 8/28/12 09:20 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: So why deny an easy and effective means of self defense from those who would otherwise be defenseless?
Yes, cause most Americans have the wherewithall to see a dangerous situation, pull out their gun, turn off the safety, points it and use it to defend themselves before the aggressor, who already has their gun out and safety off, does anything...

Sure. Some people say that there's up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, and the most conservative estimates go for at least 100,000. The upper bound is up to 4.5 million (!) per year. Given that only 10,000 or so people die from guns every year, that means there's more lives saved than taken with guns. Most of those defensive gun uses don't even involve firing the gun.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 12:07 PM Reply

At 8/29/12 03:33 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: Given that only 10,000 or so people die from guns every year, that means there's more lives saved than taken with guns.

Don't assume that the crimes stopped are potential murders. Odds are, the overwhelming super majority of them are not. It's more likely that fewer potential murders are stopped by the use of guns than are actually carried out by use of guns.

asdeqw
asdeqw
  • Member since: Jan. 8, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Gamer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 02:08 PM Reply

At 8/28/12 09:26 AM, Silverdust wrote: Oops, sorry, I didn't mean the average, local police officer. By law enforcement, I really meant special units such as SWAT. Yeah, I agree that an everyday cop having an assault rifle would be disastrous.

Uh, I'm pretty sure some police agencies issue UPRs (Urban Police Rifles).

We should also remember this: A place with guns will have gun violence. If we take the guns away, criminals will have two options: Buy the gun illegally, or resort to knife violence. Let's say B. then we have knife control. See where that would go?

We have to allow some manner of violence, or people will find another way to kill each other. The best we can do is to regulate the extremes (automatics and dedicated military weapons [not like the AR-15, but why would you need a firing M2HB?]) Licenses would need to be granted based not only the individual, but the security of their home or where they are keeping the weapon (a safe in your bedroom, ok, but not the old shed in your backyard.)


Note to self: do not go out this weekend on account of homicidal maniacs.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 04:54 PM Reply

The Brady campaign and a few other gun control advocates say they are gonna ask a question on gun control if they go to the audience. and if its brought up by the moderator I hope I get some good answers by obama so I can get some nice deals by the local Firearms dealers.

Jmayer20
Jmayer20
  • Member since: Jul. 3, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control Aug. 30th, 2012 @ 11:09 AM Reply

Look people talk about how more gun control would stop things like Columbine from happening again. Columbine high school already didn't allow there students to run around with guns. So how is it that these people did it even though the school rules forbade it. Its because law breaker and don't or insane sicos like those guys at Columbine don't care or follow the rules. That's why we call them criminals.

More gun regulation is not going to stop the criminals from acquiring a gun illegally and shooting people. Here is a video that shows what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE