Be a Supporter!

We Need Gun Control

  • 42,771 Views
  • 1,377 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 2012-08-26 17:22:31 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 2012-08-26 17:34:25 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 2012-08-26 17:37:38 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 2012-08-26 18:12:18 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 2012-08-26 22:58:47 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 2012-08-27 09:23:25 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 2012-08-27 21:54:58 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 2012-08-27 22:48:15 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 2012-08-27 22:54:37 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 2012-08-27 23:05:49 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 2012-08-28 06:24:32 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 2012-08-28 09:15:27 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 2012-08-28 09:20:15 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 2012-08-28 09:26:18 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 2012-08-28 11:33:04 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 2012-08-28 19:52:48 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 2012-08-28 20:52:24 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 2012-08-28 22:02:03 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 2012-08-28 22:17:38 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 2012-08-29 03:33:32 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 2012-08-29 12:07:01 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 2012-08-29 14:08:02 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
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 45
Programmer
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-08-29 16:54:34 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.


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

BBS Signature
Jmayer20
Jmayer20
  • Member since: Jul. 3, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-08-30 11:09:15 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

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-08-30 20:40:21 Reply

At 8/29/12 12:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
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.

Source

APPROXIMATE GUN DEATHS PER YEAR
TOTAL: 30K
Suicide: 16.7K
Homicide: 12.2K
Justifiable Homicide: 300 (this is considered by most researchers to be a low number since the estimate does not include cases being investigated and/or prosecuted. These processes often takes years and so researchers rarely go back and track every case adjudicated justifiable or a prosecutor drops it. However, if they did the number would reduce the homicide category.)
Accidental/Other: 900*

Now let's do the math and make two related assumptions:
1) The vast majority of times a non-police officer pulls a gun in self-defense it results in the other person running away.
2) The number of potential assailants who represent a possibility of homicide are very low; let's say between 0.5% and 1%

Therefore according to the most conservative numbers of DGUs; 100K/yr this means between 500-1,000 potential murderers were turned away. Now I think the more likely number of DGUs is 2M to 2.5M/yr. I'll split the difference at 2.25M/yr. This means: 11,250-22,500 potential murderers were turned away.

This is just me doing some dirty, thought experiments on the topic and not hardcore statistical analysis.

But this guy did and got it published in a minor academic journal. Using substitution effects and the amount of justifiable homicides in general and regression with handgun purchases he drew the following conclusions:

* 400K-1.4M less violent crimes/yr due to the deterrence factor of civilians with firearms for self-defense.
* 2,200-7,900 less murders/yr (meaning between 10% - 37% less murders because of civilians with firearms).
* For ALL crime the deterrence effect is estimated to be between 500K-2M/yr.
* In the handgun purchase regression model he found (amongst other reduction in crimes) an estimated 7,300 fewer murders. He also indicated that adding long guns (ie: shotguns and rifles) would magnify this number.

====

Camaro, I absolutely agree with you that the vast majority of DGUs do not involve murder. And Jake (sorry buddy...mad love for the pro-gun stance AND being a fellow Star Wars fan)...your 10K number is too low as well as your conclusion about lives saved being more than lost.

BUT that doesn't mean the implied core of your argument is wrong: guns do more good than harm. And I'll add that not only will more strict gun control not be effective...it will be counter-effective.

* The study (as well as most others on the question) shows that w/o legal gun purchases murder and all crime would significantly go up. One of the reasons is, as Camaro yourself have pointed out (I believe), there are already too many guns out in circulation. In essense it's closing the barn door after the horse got out.

* Further restriction would do more harm than good. The vast amount of gun deaths are the result of suicide (55.6%) with murders a distant second (40.X%). I'll look for sources later, but I've seen several psychological studies that indicate that access to firearm does not play a significant role in suicide...someone would off themselves using some other means. As for the homicide rate, those deaths are connected to other crime such as drugs (primarily) and so it is unlikely that the perps would follow the law anyway. All we would be doing by further restrictions on legal guns would be take away the right of ppl to defend themselves.

* I also think the economic and social costs are significant. Consider how many more insurance claims would be made for even petty theft (and increasing premiums for home owners/renters insurance). Then there are costs of treatment for victims of violent crime...economic, social and emotional.

* Final point (for the night), naronic was partially correct in bringing up the crack epidemic. However, this was largely magnified by a series of economic downturns in the '70s and '80s that left inner city black populations undereducated and lacking economic opportunity. Thus when easy to make and highly addictive/effective crack came around as a cheap and better alternative to cocaine ($2.50/dose compared to $55/dose) it was an economic boon. This in turn magnified gun violence. If the money wasted on making new laws and then enforcing them with only the probability of insignificant benefit was spent on programs to increase education and develope underdeveloped economic wastelands inside the US THAT would be far more sound and beneficial public policy.


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

BBS Signature
grevantime
grevantime
  • Member since: Jun. 1, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Artist
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-09-04 19:35:31 Reply

At 8/26/12 01:55 PM, grevantime wrote: Here's my weight in on the right to bear arms:

Okay, perfect example of the totally out-of-control federal government. All you personal liberty haters, please explain to me the need for the Social Security Administration to be stockpiling bullets. Now figure out what the "less aggressive" agencies are doing.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-09-04 22:46:42 Reply

At 9/4/12 07:35 PM, grevantime wrote: Okay, perfect example of the totally out-of-control federal government. All you personal liberty haters, please explain to me the need for the Social Security Administration to be stockpiling bullets. Now figure out what the "less aggressive" agencies are doing.

Law enforcement. Perfect example of why Wikileaks is dangerous. You get idiots like this guy who get 1% of a story and start filling in blanks as if they were even smart enough to understand the proper reason for things.

Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-09-05 00:02:22 Reply

At 8/28/12 07:52 PM, RacistBassist 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). 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

In my opinion, that should not change.

2. Automatic fire is extremely ineffective, although burst firing is just plain havoc.

Honestly, I can't see how this is the case. Why develop and mass-produce something that is ineffective?

3. There is no such thing as a purely semi-automatic Assault Rifle.

I never said that. To clarify, I am referring to rifles legally restricted to semi-auto.

4. Those "assault rifles" are nothing more then a sleek looking paint job and some aesthetic pieces that don't add much

Could you rephrase this? I am unsure of what exactly you are quoting. It seems like you are saying that assault rifles in general aren't more devastating than lighter arms - that can't possibly be what you mean?

5. There is nearly zero difference between "military grade" and a normal semi-automatic, besides paint job.

I never differentiated the two.

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.

Is that not exactly what I said at the beginning of my post? What was the purpose of this? If you do not wish to discuss this from a simpler, less in-depth perspective, there are plenty of other users in this thread whom I am sure would be happy to debate with you. Yes, my opinion on this subject is basic; there's no need for redundancy unless your intention is to put me down.


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

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-09-05 13:44:35 Reply

@ Silverdust
In your orginal post you admited to 'being' naive about guns and having a simplistic opinion. Instead of debating you about your ideas in the beginning, I would instead like to educate you about guns. The reason is if you lack knowledge of something, then any opinion you have will most likely be highly flawed. For example you make the following erroneous statements as if they are fact in your opinion:

(NOTE: I'll list the facts, then explain below.)

... but being able to empty dozens of rounds in such a short amount of time and with such power is entirely unnecessary. ... 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.

1) The rounds an assault rifle (and their clones) fire are not high powered rounds.
2) Shotguns and bolt-action rifles tend to be far more destructive than military grade small arms.
3) Pistols are used in over 70% of murders and other crime because they are concealable and it is easy to get your hands on highly lethal ammo.


... more powerful than a pistol...

See above.

====

Up until WWII most armies fielded high-powered battle rifles that were basically the same as civilian hunting rifles. After WWII practically all armies realized they did not need high-powered battle rifles; but this new thing called the assault rifle. An AR fires a round that is in between a magnum pistol round and the low end of the high-powered rounds.

Now a few things you have to know about military rounds:
* They are, by international law, required to be FMJ. This basically means that the bullet has penetrating power, but no expansion properties. So if it hits a human or animal the bullet travels straight through the body causing minimal harm. The reason for this is the Geneva and Hague Conventions which seek to reduce the inhumanity of war. The thought being: 1) we don't have to kill as many young me and 2) if only wound a soldier then we take out three soldiers (two helping the guy get medical attention) as well as more enemy resources than if we just kill him.

* Most states do not allow hunters to hunt with FMJ/military-grade ammo because it is considered ineffective and unethical for hunting.

* The 5.56mm NATO round (.223 at your local gunshop) is actually a varmit sized round. If you replaced the military-grade bullet with a hunting bullet, all it would be good for is hunting small game from squirrel to coyotes. It is effective for deer...however you have to be an exceptionally good shot and hit vital organs. If not you're only going to wound the deer and it could die hours or days later after much unnecessary hunting.

Automatic fire
* Even with the light 5.56mm (the round used in the M-16) round, when you put on it full-auto and squeeze the trigger; the recoil causes incredible barrel rise. So much so that after the third round you are shooting over people's heads. This is why it is ineffective and has been abandoned by most armies in their assault rifles.

* Machine guns (something different from assault rifles) tend to be heavier and use things like bipods and tripods to stabilize themselves making barrel rise not an issue.

* You asked if it was so ineffectual, why are they mass produced for the military? The answer is: they are not. Until 'Nam a M-16 had three modes: Safe, Semi and Auto. After 'Nam the military decided they wanted Auto changed from full auto to three round burst. This was done so that soldiers wouldn't be so wasteful with their ammo and have a chance of hitting something.

====

Let's talk about power.

Yes velocity is important. However, if your bullet is moving too fast it won't do much damage. What it comes down to is what type of bullet (projectile) the round is putting downrange. The first type of round I'll talk about is the Hollow Point.

The hollow point is a bullet that expands upon contact with a soft target (ie: flesh). This expansion causes the bullet to mushroom out and tear-up internal organs making death (without modern medical treatment) inevitable. Because it makes death inevitable...it is illegal to use in war. (NOTE: this is why we who know firearms find it amusing when ppl use the whole 'guns made only for killing' argument about semi-auto clones of military guns, it is factually wrong.) However, they are very useful for self-defense and hunting; times you want a quick kill.

There are different types of hollow points including the jacketed HP (JHP) which uses a metal casing around lead to add strength to the bullet. Some of these also allow the bullet to 'flower' instead of mushrooming where the bullet flattens in such a way that it tears into what looks like petals making it a mini-buzz saw inside the body. This helps it to more effectively destroy organs.

The next type are called Soft points. These expand similar to hollow points but not as effectively. There are two main reasons to use this over hollow points:
1) They are more effective at penetrating bigger game (ie: larger than a Whitetail deer).
2) If you have a military firearm chances are they are designed to work best with FMJ ammo...which you do not want to use for self-defense or hunting because of just how unlethal military grade ammo is. HP rounds can cause the gun not to feed correctly and jam. Soft points work almost as well as FMJ, and has some expansion properties you'd need in self-defense or hunting.

Finally, we have shotgun ammo. These come in three types of shells: buck shot, slug and shot.

Buck shot is basically large pellets used for self defense and some hunting. Each pellet is about .30 of an inch in diameter (this varies based on gauge and other factors). I have 9 pellets of 00 buck in every other shell in my shotgun I use for home defense.

Slugs are basically large balls of lead about .50 of an inch in diameter. They move slow, but can tear a hole through something or someone.

Shot are small lead pellets loaded in a shell. They are steel or lead and used for hunting birds and shooting clays.

====

Now put all this together and guess what? The guns you believe need to be regulated because of their power and high rate of fire...are shown to be the least effective firearms out there. The criminals also know this, this is why they don't use them. If you look at mass shootings you'll actually see mass shooters don't use assault rifles.

* Aurora: Holmes opened up with his shotgun first. Then switched to an AR-15 type rifle...that jammed because of the high-cap mag. Then he switched to his pistols. Most likely the most serious wounds were from the shotgun and pistol.

* VT: Cho used a .22 and 9mm pistol. He stalked his victims and took carefully aimed shots. That's why he was effective. When you look at shots fired and deaths...his is probably the most cruelly efficient spree.

* Columbine: the media refers to the weapons they used as 'assault weapons'. But they were mostly pistol caliber weapons...not intermediate caliber assault rifles.

Over 70% of murders are committed by pistols followed closely by shotguns. Far in the back of the park are rifles of any type.

In the end, what you are saying is poor public policy because it does not impact criminal behavior and what criminals choose to arm themselves with.


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

BBS Signature
thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to We Need Gun Control 2012-09-05 16:21:33 Reply

in columbine he used a hi point 995ts. It only held 10rounds (they only recently started making 15rd mags)

it is only a 9mm and has a pistol grip. Does not fall under the assault weapon category made up by gun control advocates. To them however it's still an assault weapon, even though it's their made up term that doesn't include the hi point 995ts.


BBS Signature