just saving up some money to buy a Remington 870.

what do you guys think?

At 12/10/12 12:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just saving up some money to buy a Remington 870.

what do you guys think?

Whats the purpose ?

At 12/10/12 03:37 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/10/12 12:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just saving up some money to buy a Remington 870.

what do you guys think?

Whats the purpose ?

To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

At 12/10/12 10:54 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 12/10/12 03:37 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/10/12 12:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just saving up some money to buy a Remington 870.

what do you guys think?

Whats the purpose ?

To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

Um you guy's make it sound like America is a third world country where rag tag street gangs and 12 years old boys run the street with guns. I have never even seen a gun in public on the street in my life "30 years" unless it was strapped to an officers hip or locked down in their cruiser. Neat how that works though well with no guns on the street and all bringing with it very low gun crime.

At 12/10/12 10:54 AM, Ceratisa wrote: To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

my 30 tags for thugs aren't going to fill themselves!

At 12/10/12 01:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/10/12 10:54 AM, Ceratisa wrote: To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

my 30 tags for thugs aren't going to fill themselves!

30 tags ?

At 12/10/12 02:12 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/10/12 01:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/10/12 10:54 AM, Ceratisa wrote: To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

my 30 tags for thugs aren't going to fill themselves!

30 tags ?

Yeah like hunting (you need a tag from the DNR to hunt deer within season) but instead of deer its thugs. Then I take them home string them up and turn them to jerky

At 12/10/12 02:18 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/10/12 02:12 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/10/12 01:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/10/12 10:54 AM, Ceratisa wrote: To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

my 30 tags for thugs aren't going to fill themselves!

30 tags ?

Yeah like hunting (you need a tag from the DNR to hunt deer within season) but instead of deer its thugs. Then I take them home string them up and turn them to jerky

To be quite honest it would not surprise me if the US invented "Death Tags" in which enables you a "Free Pass" to take a human life for a price of course $10,000 enabled rich people would literally acquire a monopoly on Human lives.

At 12/10/12 01:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/10/12 10:54 AM, Ceratisa wrote: To protect him from illegally smuggled guns from other countries that fall into the hands of thugs of course.

my 30 tags for thugs aren't going to fill themselves!

Good hunting, Increased gang activity down south should mean plenty of game.

Again, why take away an effective and proven means of self defense away from those who would otherwise be defenseless? The handgun allows the 4'11 100 lb. woman, 75 year old man and guy in a wheelchair a fair chance to fight off your typical criminal thug.

At 12/11/12 12:38 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Good hunting, Increased gang activity down south should mean plenty of game.

I'm up north the pickins are slim.

I'm pretty up north too, but I get some comin from Cali where I am.

At 12/9/12 10:50 PM, Revo357912 wrote: @TheMason

However, your extremely biased, therefore, meaning it would take a huge debate to accomplish something, if anything. You only look for the information that is convenient for you (self-fulling prophecy) and don't look at both sides. If the world was as black and white as you put it, then life would be much easier.

Anyways, switch sides for once and try your best to do the complete opposite of defending guns, and then I'll debate you.

Revo, 2 things:

BIAS
What you call bias is actually me being a bona fide expert in this field. I am a NCO in the military having received small arms training in the Army and USAF, I have shot competitively, I am a hunter, I am a collector. I am also a political scientist with a graduate degree. I have run the statistics on this myself. My ex-wife is a pathologist and as such I have learned much from her in the way of physiology and medicine especially regarding this topic. Also as a hunter, I am interested in ballistics and how different bullets effect the body. I have surveyed the literature both pro and con.

Thus the major reason I am black and white (as you put it) on this subject is I know and can articulate both sides of the argument. The problem with the anti-gun argument is the vast majority of things they claim are false from the following perspectives:

1) SCIENCE: Anti-gun advocates like to point to assault rifles as being especially lethal killing machines "designed only to kill people". Ballistics is the physics of what happens when a bullet strikes something, as such what it tells us about military small arms ammo is not really up to debate or subject to one's opinion. In the case of assault rifles, ballistics undermines the anti-gun argument in a way that leaves it without merit. Secondly, the physics of recoil tells us something about the effectiveness of high rates of fire. Basically, if you want to hit anything...fire one round at a time and don't worry about speed.

Time and time again we see these principles played out from battlefields to firing ranges to crime scenes. I understand what the other side's argument is...but it only works on paper and not in the real, physical world.

2) SOCIAL SCIENCE: I understand your argument that if someone is suicidal and they have access to a gun it makes it easier to kill themselves. Likewise, having access to a car makes it easy to just drift peacefully to sleep in one's garage or other confined space...and never wake up. Mixing a certain common and easily obtained two household chemicals will gas you to death, it will be unpleasant but you'll be dead in under a minute. Is this a thought experiment on my part? No, not at all. The preponderance of psychological studies show that accessibility to firearms has no impact on whether or not a person who is suicidal will kill themselves. There are a few quantitative psychological studies that shows a marginal decrease...but these are outlier studies that do some fancy statistical acrobatics are not really looked upon as quality science.

Furthermore, scientific data guides my opinions on this. The science confirms this, and multiple, multiple times. Being fluent in the data myself, when I look at the other side all I'm presented with is descriptive stats that do not tell a story about causation...just a correlation or something to elicit an emotional response. Often times they are also half-truths. For example: much is made out of accidental shootings. BUT:

* We've been keeping accidental death stats since 1904. During that time while the amount of guns has increased...the amount of gun accidents have decreased by up to 94%.

* Of all the accidental death categories worthy of getting their own category...gun deaths rate towards the bottom of the list under falls and walking accidents!

====

Also my opinions on this subject have evolved over time. Believe it or not there was a time I didn't think assault rifles should be legal. It was 1988 and I was 13. My mother was a Kindergarten teacher in Missouri. Now this dude in California opened fire on a Kindergarten playground with an AK-47 'clone' and killed about 5 or 8 kids. I was horrified...the event struck a chord with me. Afterall, he didn't do it with a deer rifle or the handgun dad kept for self defense (we lived in the country where we did not have police protection for several years).

But I grew-up. Got educated. In the intervening years my dad bought a Mini-14 rifle like they had on the A-Team. I learned about assault rifles. In college I learned social science methodology, and then again during grad school. I learned how to survey the literature and spot poor methodology and/or arguments (like the article Naronic linked to).

In the end, the other side's arguments are consistently hollow, based in emotion rather than facts or logic, and quite often made by people completely ignorant of firearms.

====

This is the only subject that I see as black and white in American politics. The reason is not my bias, but rather the culmination of years of study and experience. I have evaluated the other side's argument and it comes down to this:

The anti-gun argument is emotionally compelling. Furthermore, things like assault rifle bans make sense and are reasonable...on the surface. But once you start digging...they are unsupported by the facts.

* The US is not abnormally prone to homicide.

* Accident rates with guns are not abnormally high compared to other consumer goods.

* Military small-arms are not the abnormally effective killing machines you see in movies, anti-gun websites or celebrities showing off their ignorance after a tragedy.

* Gun accessibility is not a causal factor in gun crime.

* Areas with more guns experience less crime across the board than areas with strict gun laws including gun bans.

So I ask you...when I already am empathetic to the other side and are thoroughly acquainted with them and there are objective data that points that the other side is fundamentally wrong...why is it reasonable that I spend a month articulating the other side?

Would you like me to argue that the Earth is flat so I can better argue with a person from the Flat Earth Society?

At 12/10/12 12:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just saving up some money to buy a Remington 870.

what do you guys think?

My zombie blaster is a Benelli Supernova Tactical. Pretty sweet shooting shotty. Even with a short barrel it's good for blasting clay pigeons!

At 12/11/12 11:00 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/10/12 12:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just saving up some money to buy a Remington 870.

what do you guys think?

My zombie blaster is a Benelli Supernova Tactical. Pretty sweet shooting shotty. Even with a short barrel it's good for blasting clay pigeons!

bah nothing beats the superiority of American shotguns especially that italian shit.

a beautiful little pic I found while surfing some NRA forums.

speaks for itself.

At 12/12/12 02:12 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: a beautiful little pic I found while surfing some NRA forums.

speaks for itself.

Um totalian regimes are bad, no matter if they allow guns or not.

Sweden have gun control, yet we're rated 4th in the world democracy index, rated 4th least corrupt country in the world, we got the 21st biggest economy, we're rated second most competitive country in the world by the World Economic Forum in 2010, with only Switzerland being more competitive. Our gross national income per capita is also quite the bit higher than US.

And we have, like all Scandinavian countries and most western European countries have gun control. Highly developed, highly successful, and almost all with a much lower crime rate than the US. Especially when it comes to violent and gun crimes(obviously ;)).

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!! Illinois concealed carry ban tossed by federal appeals court!

Illinois' days as the only state in the nation to forbid public possession of a firearm could be numbered after a federal appellate court threw out a state ban and gave lawmakers six months to figure out a way to let people legally carry guns.

W00T for the Second Amendment.

Good based solely on your post that would have been a terrible precedent.

At 12/11/12 07:40 PM, RacistBassist wrote: ^This. I mean seriously, barring very extenuating circumstances, most women would be completely fucked over if some criminal comes at them.

Some guy trying to take a little girl's purse or an old man's wallet way more often than not does not want to use violence hence the targetting of the physically weak. The use of a gun here is not only excessive, it opens the door for the would be non-violent criminal to feel that violence is actually needed.

----------------------

On a different note, seeing what happened in the mall across town, I thought I'd bing up guns in relation to mass attacks. When you have someone who is so mentally broken that they believe indiscriminately killing others will solve their problems, the lack of guns will not change their plan. Case in point: The Akihabara Massacre. This attack took place in Japan which has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. Guns are almost impossible to get a hold of and shootings are almost non-existent. This guy went to a crowded shopping area (having lived in Tokyo and frequented Akihabara, because it was free to go to, not because I'm some anime pervert, so I can attest that a small crowd in Tokyo is akin to a football game letting out) and proceeded to stab at least 12 people with a dagger. No gun and he still found a way to unleash extreme mass violence on innocent people.

At 12/12/12 12:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/11/12 07:40 PM, RacistBassist wrote: ^This. I mean seriously, barring very extenuating circumstances, most women would be completely fucked over if some criminal comes at them.

On a different note, The Akihabara Massacre. This guy went to a crowded shopping area (having lived in Tokyo and frequented Akihabara, because it was free to go to, not because I'm some anime pervert, so I can attest that a small crowd in Tokyo is akin to a football game letting out) and proceeded to stab at least 12 people with a dagger. No gun and he still found a way to unleash extreme mass violence on innocent people.

;;;;
Those are good points CamarH, there are also cases where people have used a motor vehicle & drove through crowds, or into a business where people were waiting. THe poison gas attacks in a Subway ...which I seem to remember from years ago was also in Japan.

And let us not forget all the bombers who use car bombs, suitcase bombs as well as the really 'smart ones' who strap a bomb to themselves !

You really want to harm others ...there are lots of ways to do it without a gun.

*NOTE* please note that the 'smart ones' comment was me trying to be sarcastic !

At 12/11/12 10:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/9/12 10:50 PM, Revo357912 wrote: @TheMason

However, your extremely biased, therefore, meaning it would take a huge debate to accomplish something, if anything. You only look for the information that is convenient for you (self-fulling prophecy) and don't look at both sides. If the world was as black and white as you put it, then life would be much easier.

Anyways, switch sides for once and try your best to do the complete opposite of defending guns, and then I'll debate you.

Revo, 2 things:

BIAS

To start with, you have only listed immediate reasons of the reason gun control doesn't work.

Have you looked at how our lax control affects other countries? How that in turn affects their other criminal activity?
Which in turn affects us, such as the amount of illegal substances that enter the US?

Or the amount of pollution caused by the toxic substances produced by used gun ammo, such as lead?
Which would not be as bad as a problem, except that gun ranges are increasing in the nation:
http://www.ewg.org/files/leadpoll.pdf

These are only some ways relaxed gun laws don't help.

Again, I'm not saying anything outrageous like ban guns or anything, but we do need more control, and not necessarily with who gets a gun, but how their obtained and most indefinably how they are sold.

Also, I stated your bias because you have been trained, as you have shown in your post, to support gun use. Your experience and life have lead to that.

At 12/12/12 12:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

On a different note, seeing what happened in the mall across town, I thought I'd bing up guns in relation to mass attacks. When you have someone who is so mentally broken that they believe indiscriminately killing others will solve their problems, the lack of guns will not change their plan. Case in point: The Akihabara Massacre. This attack took place in

So, I guess you forgot to also mention that, despite this guy also using a two ton truck to try to kill people and stabbing 12 people, in, as you said, a very crowded area, he managed to kill only 7 people.

7. An I got that from the link you posted.

Yet, the Colorado shooting, which happened with less people than the event you mention, managed to kill 14 people and injure more than 10 people (More than 50 actually), which is about the amount of people injured in the event you listed.

At 12/12/12 01:08 PM, morefngdbs wrote: THe poison gas attacks in a Subway ...which I seem to remember from years ago was also in Japan.

I would characterize the Seran gas attack more as political terrorism than a mass attack akin to Aurora.

At 12/12/12 11:30 PM, Revo357912 wrote: So, I guess you forgot to also mention that, despite this guy also using a two ton truck to try to kill people and stabbing 12 people, in, as you said, a very crowded area, he managed to kill only 7 people.

Movie theater is cramped and hard to escape. The plazas in Akihabara are very wide open and are easily escaped. This is a very importance dynamic you cannot overlook.

Since I live nearby and it's topical I thought i'd post this
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/oregon-mall-shooting/i ndex.html
Another stolen gun used to commit crime. Stricter gun laws don't stop people from using stolen weapons though, do they?

At 12/13/12 10:59 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Another stolen gun used to commit crime. Stricter gun laws don't stop people from using stolen weapons though, do they?

no they don't

At 12/13/12 10:59 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Another stolen gun used to commit crime. Stricter gun laws don't stop people from using stolen weapons though, do they?

Actually, in this case it would have.

Unlike when Mason and TDG use the stolen gun argument, this gun was owned legally in the US. Had the guy's buddy not owned the gun, the shooter would not have been able to steal it the way he did.

Per ORS chapter 166 all non-shot guns classified as lesser than a machine gun are legal in Oregon. The definition of machine gun is any gun that fires more than one round with just one depression of the trigger. Based on the description by witnesses and the statement by the Sheriff's office the AR-15 used was semi-automatic and thus legal, unless Roberts' friend was disqualified for some reason.

The stolen weapon argument only applies to smuggled guns, whether they be smuggled from a state with loose laws or from a different country.

At 12/12/12 11:19 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

To start with, you have only listed immediate reasons of the reason gun control doesn't work.

The reasons gun control doesn't work is gun availability is not a cause of crime...including gun crime. The following are causes of crime:

* Poverty
* Lack of education
* How diverse a country is

The problem with gun control, more than we have now, is that it takes manpower, money and resources from public policy initiatives that actually tackle those issues.

Have you looked at how our lax control affects other countries? How that in turn affects their other criminal activity?
Which in turn affects us, such as the amount of illegal substances that enter the US?

Yes I have.

A few years back Hillary mentioned that somewhere between 94-97% of guns used in crime in Mexico are traced back to the US. When I looked into her statement it turns out that this is only 97% of 17% of guns used in crime in Mexico. In other words, 83% of guns used in crime in Mexico do not have serial numbers that can be traced. There is also some evidence that these are guns which are manufactured without serial numbers...which means they do not come from the US.

Another source of these guns are the US government. One of the problems Mexico has is the cartels will pay soldiers to desert from the Army...and bring their US made M-16s with them.

And yet another source is state sponsored Narco-terrorism. About seven years ago Hugo Chavez purchased more AK-type rifles than he had military. About 3x more. Furthermore, he purchased them in the 7.62x39 calibur. This is notable because most militaries purching new AKs buy the 5.46 calibur. The 7.62x39 is popular in the US (it is actually a good short-range deer round) and with drug cartels. The concern by US officials (military and law enforcement) is that he will sell these to the cartels for smuggling...in order to either enrich himself or prop-up his regime.

Or the amount of pollution caused by the toxic substances produced by used gun ammo, such as lead?
Which would not be as bad as a problem, except that gun ranges are increasing in the nation:
http://www.ewg.org/files/leadpoll.pdf

* In Missouri every conservation department range shuts down once a year to reclaim and then recycle the led.

* Indoor shooting ranges also collect the lead for recycling/appropriate disposal.

* Many ammo manufactures are cognizant of this issue and are changing the content of their bullets.

These are only some ways relaxed gun laws don't help.

On the surface...but dig deeper and it is not that gun laws are too lax and these problems are exacerbated because of our current gun laws...but that gun laws do not have the causal relationship with the problem necessary to make more stringent gun laws effective at solving those problems.

Again, I'm not saying anything outrageous like ban guns or anything, but we do need more control, and not necessarily with who gets a gun, but how their obtained and most indefinably how they are sold.

What are your solutions to these problems?

Also, I stated your bias because you have been trained, as you have shown in your post, to support gun use. Your experience and life have lead to that.

The problem with your claim is my training as a political scientist trains me to take my bias out of the equation when evaluating the data and to let the data lead me to my conclusions about what works and what does not work. Furthermore, what is the cause of problems and what is not.

See the thing with the anti-gun argument is there are very few studies that go into any depth of statistical analysis...and support their argument.

Thus the scientific evidence for gun control simply does not exist. Meanwhile, there is a breadth of scientific evidence that supports that further gun control efforts are wasteful and unnecessary...they will not accomplish anything.

Furthermore, not all of their arguments lend themselves to social scientific inquiry. They also make claims about the nature of the guns themselves such as assault rifles and the question: "Why should civilians own military weapons when they are designed only to kill people."

This question displays an ignorance of firearms and mistaken underlying assumptions.

Should I not correct these with the facts that assault rifles are not unusually effective killing machines? And that actually military firearms by international convention cannot ensure that a soldier shot by it dies? These are not thought-experiments created by pro-gun advocates...but concrete, black and white facts. Truths that neither side's opinions can change.

"America will be a Civil war zone because most Americans are not level headed and many own guns. I don't need
guns around me or my family when in public so save your ego based non sense for the sheep cause your trying to mess with the wrong one here. I am not the enemy the enemy is the ideal that people can paint a sinking ship with weapons. Weapons I will add that are supposed to be for protection from evil corrupt Government not each other. Something needs to change and guns are not the answer."

At 12/13/12 12:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/13/12 10:59 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Another stolen gun used to commit crime. Stricter gun laws don't stop people from using stolen weapons though, do they?

Actually, in this case it would have.

Unlike when Mason and TDG use the stolen gun argument, this gun was owned legally in the US. Had the guy's buddy not owned the gun, the shooter would not have been able to steal it the way he did.

Per ORS chapter 166 all non-shot guns classified as lesser than a machine gun are legal in Oregon. The definition of machine gun is any gun that fires more than one round with just one depression of the trigger. Based on the description by witnesses and the statement by the Sheriff's office the AR-15 used was semi-automatic and thus legal, unless Roberts' friend was disqualified for some reason.

The stolen weapon argument only applies to smuggled guns, whether they be smuggled from a state with loose laws or from a different country.

Are you suggesting that gun laws should limit semi automatic weapons? Because that is most weapons including ones people use for self protection.

In addition how would stricter gun laws help prevent this when someone legally obtains a weapon and it is stolen by someone else to commit a crime?