View Full Version : Some facts about guns in the US


Pages : [1] 2 3

James R
12-17-12, 02:58 AM
This post sets out a few facts relevant to guns and gun control in the United States. Below are some facts summarised from the following two articles, published in The Age (theage.com.au) newspaper today.

Sources:

Will the Sandy Hook massacre be America's tipping point? (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/will-the-sandy-hook-massacre-be-americas-tipping-point-20121216-2bhfy.html)
Talking gun violence: facts for a debate America has to have (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/talking-gun-violence-facts-for-a-debate-america-has-to-have-20121216-2bhgl.html)

---

1. There have been 16 mass shootings in 2012 in the United States.
2. Most US states have no owner licensing or gun registration, no requirement to provide a good reason to own a gun, no ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, and no limit on the number of such guns a person can own.
3. Following the Port Arthur massacre of 35 people in Australia in 1996, strict gun laws were introduced. Since then, the annual number of gunshot deaths has dropped by half and there have been no mass shootings. Researchers at the Australian National University estimate that the laws have saved $500 million a year and 200 lives. The population of the US is about 10 times that of Australia, so scale this up by a factor of 10 to estimate possible benefits of strict gun control.
4. In the most recent US election, most of the candidates backed by the NRA did not win their seats.
5. The day after the latest shooting (Sandy Hook), more than 100,000 people signed dozens of petitions. Campaigners are calling for two basic measures:
(a) All gun buyers pass a criminal background check, whether they are buying a new or second-hand weapon. At present most states only require background checks for buyers of new guns. Not surprisingly, a large proportion of gun sales - estimated at 40 per cent - are second-hand.
(b) A ban on civilian ownership of assault weapons, the automatic or semi-automatic firearms designed for killing large numbers of people.

Meanwhile, the gun lobby is circulating a petition that calls for a gun in every classroom, with every teacher to be armed.
6. Police data show that gun sales tend to increase after mass shootings like the one in Sandy Hook.
7. Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. In most cases, the killers obtained their weapons legally.
8. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years happened in the US.
9. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as can be seen from the examples of Israel and Switzerland.
10. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened since 2006. That doesn't include the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting.
11. America is an unusually violent country, but it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries. The US is a clear outlier, with rates well above other countries. As Healy writes, ''The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the US is than other OECD countries … and (2) the degree of change - and recently, decline - there has been in the US.''
12. Gun ownership in the US is declining. ''For all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,'' political scientist Patrick Egan, of New York University, wrote in July. ''Long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the US.''
13. More guns tend to mean more homicide, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.
14. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence (source: economist Richard Florida).
15. Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness are not correlated with more deaths from gun violence.
16. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular in the US. .... Gallup reported after a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, last year. ''In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44 per cent in favour of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.''
17. But particular policies to control guns often are. An August CNN poll asked Americans whether they favour or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular. About 90 per cent support background checks and no guns for felons or the mentally ill.
18. Shootings don't tend to substantially affect the views of Americans on gun control.

kwhilborn
12-17-12, 03:15 AM
I'm Canadian. I've never seen anybody with a gun/pistol. Think we should put up a fence to keep you Americans out.

James R points a very bleak picture of you all (sorry "Y'all" is proper American spelling).

Although it would not prevent you Americans from killing yourselves all the time, I really would support the idea of camera filming every square inch of the country.
It would be nice to know if a crime does occur we can simply follow the suspect home via the camera trail. If people worry about the abuse of these cameras make a court order necessary to access their memories (which are always encoded and sent to various secure locations to avoid cameras being compromised).
Guess that should be another topic though.

The only way Canadians can get a pistol is if they know an American. Damn Foreigners. Keep your guns to yourselves.

Asguard
12-17-12, 03:33 AM
In the other thread I posted a link that said up to the date (as of the school shooting, I herd something that said 2 more had happened SINCE but not sure If that was accurate) of that school shoting at least 88 people have been killed on mass shotings

spidergoat
12-17-12, 11:34 AM
It's too late to do anything about mass shootings. We already have millions of guns and the ammunition to go with them. It doesn't matter if mentally unstable people can't buy a gun, they can just steal one or two from someone who has them.

arauca
12-17-12, 11:55 AM
I'm Canadian. I've never seen anybody with a gun/pistol. Think we should put up a fence to keep you Americans out.

James R points a very bleak picture of you all (sorry "Y'all" is proper American spelling).

Although it would not prevent you Americans from killing yourselves all the time, I really would support the idea of camera filming every square inch of the country.
It would be nice to know if a crime does occur we can simply follow the suspect home via the camera trail. If people worry about the abuse of these cameras make a court order necessary to access their memories (which are always encoded and sent to various secure locations to avoid cameras being compromised).
Guess that should be another topic though.

The only way Canadians can get a pistol is if they know an American. Damn Foreigners. Keep your guns to yourselves.



Do you have prayers in school and mentioning God in your constitution ?

kwhilborn
12-17-12, 04:14 PM
@ Arauca,
I'm betting our Catholic Schools likely have prayers, but am too old to go check. There is a group called "Humanists" here that campaign to remove the word god from all documents and replace it with "Intellectual Freedom", but it has not yet happened.

Unsure how that relates to the price of tea in China.

as James R pointed out


1. There have been 16 mass shootings in 2012 in the United States.
2. Most US states have no owner licensing or gun registration, no requirement to provide a good reason to own a gun, no ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, and no limit on the number of such guns a person can own.
3. Following the Port Arthur massacre of 35 people in Australia in 1996, strict gun laws were introduced. Since then, the annual number of gunshot deaths has dropped by half and there have been no mass shootings. Researchers at the Australian National University estimate that the laws have saved $500 million a year and 200 lives. The population of the US is about 10 times that of Australia, so scale this up by a factor of 10 to estimate possible benefits of strict gun control.
4. In the most recent US election, most of the candidates backed by the NRA did not win their seats.
5. The day after the latest shooting (Sandy Hook), more than 100,000 people signed dozens of petitions. Campaigners are calling for two basic measures:
(a) All gun buyers pass a criminal background check, whether they are buying a new or second-hand weapon. At present most states only require background checks for buyers of new guns. Not surprisingly, a large proportion of gun sales - estimated at 40 per cent - are second-hand.
(b) A ban on civilian ownership of assault weapons, the automatic or semi-automatic firearms designed for killing large numbers of people.

Meanwhile, the gun lobby is circulating a petition that calls for a gun in every classroom, with every teacher to be armed.
6. Police data show that gun sales tend to increase after mass shootings like the one in Sandy Hook.
7. Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. In most cases, the killers obtained their weapons legally.
8. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years happened in the US.
9. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as can be seen from the examples of Israel and Switzerland.
10. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened since 2006. That doesn't include the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting.
11. America is an unusually violent country, but it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries. The US is a clear outlier, with rates well above other countries. As Healy writes, ''The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the US is than other OECD countries … and (2) the degree of change - and recently, decline - there has been in the US.''
12. Gun ownership in the US is declining. ''For all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,'' political scientist Patrick Egan, of New York University, wrote in July. ''Long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the US.''
13. More guns tend to mean more homicide, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.
14. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence (source: economist Richard Florida).
15. Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness are not correlated with more deaths from gun violence.
16. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular in the US. .... Gallup reported after a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, last year. ''In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44 per cent in favour of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.''
17. But particular policies to control guns often are. An August CNN poll asked Americans whether they favour or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular. About 90 per cent support background checks and no guns for felons or the mentally ill.
18. Shootings don't tend to substantially affect the views of Americans on gun control.

This should be the discussion, and nothing to do with God or Religion.

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/global-gun-deaths-map.gif

I am thankful to be living in a pink zone that has banned handguns outright. Hunting firearms exist (no ak-47's though sorry). We like our deer less "Tenderized".

spidergoat
12-17-12, 04:24 PM
@ Arauca,
...There is a group called "Humanists" here that campaign to remove the word god from all documents and replace it with "Intellectual Freedom", but it has not yet happened....

From all documents? What are you talking about?

spidergoat
12-17-12, 04:25 PM
Do you have prayers in school and mentioning God in your constitution ?
I suppose you are with people like Mike Huckabee, who says that God is prevented from doing anything about killers, because we fail to kiss his ass enough.

GeoffP
12-17-12, 10:07 PM
I'm Canadian. I've never seen anybody with a gun/pistol. Think we should put up a fence to keep you Americans out.

James R points a very bleak picture of you all (sorry "Y'all" is proper American spelling).

Although it would not prevent you Americans from killing yourselves all the time, I really would support the idea of camera filming every square inch of the country.
It would be nice to know if a crime does occur we can simply follow the suspect home via the camera trail. If people worry about the abuse of these cameras make a court order necessary to access their memories (which are always encoded and sent to various secure locations to avoid cameras being compromised).
Guess that should be another topic though.

The only way Canadians can get a pistol is if they know an American. Damn Foreigners. Keep your guns to yourselves.

Hold on there. My father had several guns. He even kept one under his pillow for a while. Don't paint Canada in the universal colours of 905 sensibilities. It isn't that and, as the proud product of hicks, it won't be.

Thoreau
12-17-12, 11:24 PM
I had a fleeting thought that I might actually jump in here and say a few things to counter James' post. However, between debating this in other threads, as well as on Facebook, I am mentally worn out. I will just say this:

I love my firearms. I don't hunt because I don't believe in killing another living being unless my very survival depended on it (food or protection). I'm a military veteran who is well-trained in the use of firearms. My firearms serve two purposes... sport (I like to target shoot) and personal protection. And if I have it my way, I will always own firearms. I have a Constitutional right to do so, and I have a right to defend myself, if I ever need to AGAIN in the future. So, if anyone wants to ban or take away my rights to bear arms and to protect myself, you're going to have to pry them out of my cold, dead fingers. That'll be the only way you'll get them. I'd sooner move out of the country to a place that respects my rights than to sit here and have them taken away.

Don't bother countering my post. I won't respond to any questions.

Balerion
12-17-12, 11:51 PM
I'm wishy-washy on this issue. I hate gun violence (obviously) but I also don't like the idea of telling citizens they can't own guns.

Let me put this out there: would a ban on semi-automatic weapons not end any hope for a revolution? Not saying we need one, but we might in the future.

Balerion
12-17-12, 11:57 PM
I'm Canadian. I've never seen anybody with a gun/pistol. Think we should put up a fence to keep you Americans out.

James R points a very bleak picture of you all (sorry "Y'all" is proper American spelling).

Although it would not prevent you Americans from killing yourselves all the time, I really would support the idea of camera filming every square inch of the country.
It would be nice to know if a crime does occur we can simply follow the suspect home via the camera trail. If people worry about the abuse of these cameras make a court order necessary to access their memories (which are always encoded and sent to various secure locations to avoid cameras being compromised).
Guess that should be another topic though.

The only way Canadians can get a pistol is if they know an American. Damn Foreigners. Keep your guns to yourselves.

Yeah, you guys are really peaceful.

Unless the Canucks lose in the Stanley Cup finals. Then you clowns humiliate yourselves on the world stage.

Climb down off that pedestal, hoser.

James R
12-18-12, 12:03 AM
More data (and some opinion), from here:

Gun glamour: America's appetite for anarchy
December 18, 2012
by Brian Masters

Link to complete article (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/gun-glamour-americas-appetite-for-anarchy-20121217-2bj8a.html#ixzz2FNczR2uV)

----


The truth is, America is a society obsessed with guns and addicted to their repulsive but effective use as instruments of death. They like them; they teach their children to shoot them, as Nancy Lanza did with her son, Adam, the young man responsible for the carnage in Connecticut; they store them; they harbour a fetish for them, and will never tolerate any attempt to deny them their toys. They rarely admit what their guns are designed to do, which is to kill.

1. There are about 300 million guns in the US. One-third are handguns. This is the highest concentration of private gun ownership in the world.
2. Every year, 17,000 people are killed in America, 70 per cent of them with guns, and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves to death. Only Colombia has a worse record in the world.
3. The slaughter of children by gunfire in the United States is 25 times the rate of the 20 next largest industrial countries in the world combined.
4. About 80 people a day are shot to death in the US.
5. Studies have demonstrated, over and over again, that homes which do not have a gun in the drawer are safer than those which do.
6. The incidence of suicide in the home is far higher in US homes that contain guns than those that do not.
7. Murder in the pursuit of self-esteem, what the writer James Carroll called ''expressive violence'', is the perversion of an American value, the one which says no child should have his aspirations for self-expression thwarted; ally this with the value that nobody should be denied the right to own and use a gun, and you have the loudest expression of self imaginable.
8. In Virginia, laws have been enacted prohibiting the police from mounting so-called ''sting'' operations on shops that openly sell assault weapons to people without checking their histories. The police are thereby legally prevented from doing their job of keeping public order. Whenever they try, somebody will happily go before the camera to proclaim the right to carry and use a gun without any restriction, even that of lunacy.
9. The NRA has spent more than $35 million on its lobbying machine since 1997, and spends millions more on advertisements and publicity often devoted to the calumny and denigration of anyone who resists the appeal of its reckless morals. It is not above simply telling lies about its opponents to get its way.
10. Justice Stephen Breyer, with rare eloquence and clarity, has pointed out the differences between an ''18th-century, primarily rural America, where frontier life demanded guns, and the present, primarily urban America, where gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives''.

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 12:27 AM
@ spidergoat,
I was answering Arauca.

From all documents? What are you talking about?
IF you had noticed the @ ARAUCA at the top of my comment then you might have realized the documents mentioned were the documents ARAUCA was discussing such as The Constitution.

If you are going to partake in a discussion then perhaps follow it sequentially to avoid confusion in future.

@ GeoffP,

Hold on there. My father had several guns. He even kept one under his pillow for a while. Don't paint Canada in the universal colours of 905 sensibilities. It isn't that and, as the proud product of hicks, it won't be.

I am assuming your father was a Canadian then at least for a while. If your father had guns they likely came from America or he is/was a cop.

I don't need to paint Canada at all. Statistics work fine.

United states:
Over 110,645 children have been killed by a firearm since 1979, with over 280 million guns in civilian hands.
Canada
Whats a gun?

Bells
12-18-12, 12:29 AM
I'm wishy-washy on this issue. I hate gun violence (obviously) but I also don't like the idea of telling citizens they can't own guns.

Let me put this out there: would a ban on semi-automatic weapons not end any hope for a revolution? Not saying we need one, but we might in the future.
Do you stockpile food and water as well?

Have a bunker?

Because you might need those as well.

I mean sure, you are as likely to need a semi-automatic weapon in the event of an revolution as you would be to have a bunker that can withstand a zombie apocalypse that could be coming in the future.

And realistically, if there is ever a need for a revolution in the future, what chance do you think a semi-automatic weapon will have against a State that has nukes and an overly well equipped defence force? Sure, you had a chance when the Constitution was being drafted, but in today's society, it is hardly a realistic expectation to be holding onto.

Thoreau
12-18-12, 12:37 AM
Do you stockpile food and water as well?

Have a bunker?

Because you might need those as well.

I mean sure, you are as likely to need a semi-automatic weapon in the event of an revolution as you would be to have a bunker that can withstand a zombie apocalypse that could be coming in the future.

And realistically, if there is ever a need for a revolution in the future, what chance do you think a semi-automatic weapon will have against a State that has nukes and an overly well equipped defence force? Sure, you had a chance when the Constitution was being drafted, but in today's society, it is hardly a realistic expectation to be holding onto.

States don't have nukes. Nukes are owned nationally.

Bells
12-18-12, 12:48 AM
States don't have nukes. Nukes are owned nationally.

"State" = Government in this instance..

Thoreau
12-18-12, 12:49 AM
"State" = Government in this instance..

Gotcha.

Balerion
12-18-12, 01:12 AM
Do you stockpile food and water as well?

Have a bunker?

Because you might need those as well.

No, but in that event, I'm sure there are places that can be appropriated and used as such. Either way, it's not the same as having weapons. You could theoretically get food. Where are you going to get semi-automatic weapons if they're banned?


I mean sure, you are as likely to need a semi-automatic weapon in the event of an revolution as you would be to have a bunker that can withstand a zombie apocalypse that could be coming in the future.

Really? You think the odds of a revolution occurring--an event that was the foundation of this country and happening right this very minute in several places across the globe--are about the same as a zombie apocalypse?

Do I have that right? That an uprising against the American government is as likely as The Walking Dead coming true?


And realistically, if there is ever a need for a revolution in the future, what chance do you think a semi-automatic weapon will have against a State that has nukes and an overly well equipped defence force? Sure, you had a chance when the Constitution was being drafted, but in today's society, it is hardly a realistic expectation to be holding onto.

The state wouldn't nuke itself, but I do understand the long odds of a revolution being successful. It would be difficult without international aid...just as it was last time, and just as it is today in any country. I wouldn't call it impossible, of course. And I also understand that it's not likely in the near-future that a revolution occurs in this country. But can you say with certainty that there is no event, or series of events, that might necessitate such a thing? I can't. The spirit of the constitution allowing us to bear arms is for just such a possibility. (Among other, outdated scenarios)

I'm for gun control. I'm for background checks, waiting periods, even denials to convicted felons, or GPS tracking of every weapon sold. I agree the government should have a role in this. But I kind of disagree with the idea of completely taking those weapons out of our hands.

I also understand that certain freedoms come with certain risks, and you can't have it both ways. It comes down to what you value more, safety or a those particular liberties.

GeoffP
12-18-12, 11:04 AM
@ spidergoat,
I was answering Arauca.

IF you had noticed the @ ARAUCA at the top of my comment then you might have realized the documents mentioned were the documents ARAUCA was discussing such as The Constitution.

If you are going to partake in a discussion then perhaps follow it sequentially to avoid confusion in future.

@ GeoffP,


I am assuming your father was a Canadian then at least for a while. If your father had guns they likely came from America or he is/was a cop.

I don't need to paint Canada at all. Statistics work fine.

United states:
Over 110,645 children have been killed by a firearm since 1979, with over 280 million guns in civilian hands.
Canada
Whats a gun?

I was surprised to see that Canada's guns per capita is lower than than of France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Nonetheless, they're a part of rural culture. Not automatics, mind.


Do you stockpile food and water as well?

Have a bunker?

Because you might need those as well.

I mean sure, you are as likely to need a semi-automatic weapon in the event of an revolution as you would be to have a bunker that can withstand a zombie apocalypse that could be coming in the future.

And realistically, if there is ever a need for a revolution in the future, what chance do you think a semi-automatic weapon will have against a State that has nukes and an overly well equipped defence force? Sure, you had a chance when the Constitution was being drafted, but in today's society, it is hardly a realistic expectation to be holding onto.

Afghanistan. Iraq. Somalia. Lots of places do have limited arms but an impressive ability to resist one well-equipped authority or another.

I won't beat around the bush: I don't trust the government of anything at all. Politicians and their servitors are, almost to a wo/man, self-serving expedientialists. I don't want weapons in the hands of madmen - but we're also being led by madmen, as I see it.

billvon
12-18-12, 11:10 AM
(b) A ban on civilian ownership of assault weapons, the automatic or semi-automatic firearms designed for killing large numbers of people.

I have never seen a rational definition of assault weapon that matches that description. Indeed, oftentimes it is the OPPOSITE - there was an assault weapons ban a while back that defined "assault weapon" in part as a gun that could have a bayonet attached. Which, of course, is the opposite of a weapon that is designed for killing large numbers of people.

Ellis
12-18-12, 01:46 PM
I'm Canadian and am the owner of several guns. I grew up on a farm and come from a long history of hunters. We own a hunting lodge in Northern Ontario. You need to take a course and are subject to background checks to get your Possession and Acquisition License (PAL). This allows you to own a long rifle (normal hunting/sporting rifles). There was also a national gun registry which required each gun to be recorded and that information was available to the police so they knew who owned what type of firearm and where it was kept. This registry has since been abolished due to the high cost and lack of people claiming ownership of long rifles which were owned prior to it's inception about 15 years ago. Handguns are available to be purchased but, require more licensing. I have a handgun license as well. It is essentially an amendment to your PAL which allows you to purchase "restricted weapons". It requires another course as well as a host of criminal/character checks for you to get it. If your ex-wife/neighbour/family member objects to you owning the restricted weapon, you are denied the permit. Then once you purchase a handgun, you are required to notify the police who then issue you a permit to take the weapon home and they stipulate the time and even the route you take. The gun must be kept with a trigger lock, in a permanently fixed locked safe with the ammunition stored separately. Now if you want to shoot it, you have to notify the police of the range you are member of and again the time and route is indicated on your permit to transport to that range. Also, there is an additional course you take for your hunting license and that is very strictly monitored. Each province has some slight variations on the transport permits but, they are all very similar.

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 02:23 PM
@ Billvon,
I would describe any weapon with a magazine attached as an assault weapon. Hunting is a sport and putting a bullet manually into the chamber should not restrict the sport too much. I have no idea who came up with the definition of "assault rifle" that you read about, but it should be based on ability to reload and refire quickly. No magazines should EVER be sold to the public.

I was a Marksman with The 2nd Field Engineers Militia. I know how to convert a semi-automatic FNC1 to Fully Automatic by altering it with a simple matchhead. There is no need for a weapon with a magazine for hunting. The 303 came with a smaller magazine, but jammed so frequently it might as well have been a manually fed weapon.

If someone were to invent a mechanism or foolproof trigger system that regulated time between shots ( 1 minute maybe ) for hunting it would likely satisfy many gun critics and sell well. If you cannot kill your Deer on the first shot then you lose. No need to fill it with 20 holes.

The post above pretty much shows how hard Canadian weapons are to get. I have never seen a handgun in public that was not in a police holster.

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 03:12 PM
How about this: "Any projectile weapon systems that has ammo stored in detectable magazines, with muzzle energies over 1000 joules and barrel lengths exceeding 25.4 cm or 10 inchs, are illegal for civilian purchase or ownership". That covers all these assault weapons without any of the ambiguity of what is an "assault weapons" of course it leaves out handguns, even the 50 cal Desert Eagle would not fall under this ban (barrel does not exceed 10 inchs, besides that very few people can fire a 2000 joule bullet without this guns flying back into their face! in fact any handgun over 1000 joules is painfully hard to control even the first shot) and most magnums are revolves.

I don't see why hunters need semi-auto weapons, usually if the first shot missed the pray is already on the run before the gun has automatically chambered the second round. As is very few shotguns are automatic, and semi-autos can't beat the accuracy of bolt action and as such bolt actions are still common in hunting and gun sports.

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 03:20 PM
*Double post, please delete* -- 16,000 post and just 9 days way from 10 years of membership, not bad.

billvon
12-18-12, 03:22 PM
I would describe any weapon with a magazine attached as an assault weapon. Hunting is a sport and putting a bullet manually into the chamber should not restrict the sport too much. I have no idea who came up with the definition of "assault rifle" that you read about, but it should be based on ability to reload and refire quickly. No magazines should EVER be sold to the public.

Are revolvers assault weapons? Some will hold 10 rounds and of course can be reloaded in seconds with a speedloader, and most are effectively semiautomatics (one trigger pull = one shot.)

billvon
12-18-12, 03:32 PM
How about this: "Any projectile weapon systems that has ammo stored in detectable magazines, with muzzle energies over 1000 joules and barrel lengths exceeding 25.4 cm or 10 inchs, are illegal for civilian purchase or ownership".

So an Uzi submachine gun with a barrel that is .3" shorter would not be an assault weapon, but a Remington 700 deer rifle (detachable magazine) IS an assault weapon? The Uzi would be legal but the Remington wouldn't?

(Not saying that's what you intended; just pointing out the difficulty of defining things like "assault weapons.")

R1D2
12-18-12, 03:53 PM
The guns used in Connecticut was bought by his mom legally. He stole them and used them wrongly. The AR15 is semi auto not full auto. Semi Auto is used many times for hunting. It takes a human to kill the weapon don't do that by itself.

The government may regulate spoons now instead of guns.
It lead to many Americans to get fat including a "LARGE DONOR" of Obama, Oprah.

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 04:04 PM
@ Billvon,

My definition might not be popular with Americans in general, as I feel all handguns should be solely for law enforcement.

I think it is common sense. Think common sense and you will see my opinion clearly. There is no reason anybody should own a firearm imho that is not for killing game. It might be too late in countries like the USA as everyone already has one under their pillow but in countries like mine I hope we never see that kind of distribution.

@ Electric Fetus,
I don't care if the gun has a 3 inch barrel and is a .22 . There is no reason for a magazine. Magazines are for killing people. PERIOD

If you are a hunter who requires a magazine on your rifle then you are either too far away or a lousy shot and should consider bowling instead.

@ R1D2,
The AR15 if I recall is simply the civilian version of the Military M-16. As I said before you can easily convert most semi-automatics to fully automatic with a folded piece of paper or a matchhead.

It takes a human to kill the weapon don't do that by itself.
Using that logic would you be comfortable licensing M-60's? Why not license grenades as well (for hunting of course)?

I will admit that firing a fully-automatic weapon or throwing a grenade is fun, but do we really need semi-automatics for hunting? A manually loaded weapon might give a hero a fighting chance in a mass shooting situation. As much as you would like a rifle in your gun case, remember that 100 lunatics will also get the exact same rifle.

Funny sidenote: I'm Canadian but was touring Fort Knox Kentucky basic training. When I got to the Grenade range I was sitting with all of the new recruits. Every time a grenade exploded a hail of rocks and stones came flying and shooting off the roof of our bunker. These grenades seemed like they were digging to China.
------
After some time we heard a message come from the Range Control Tower stating, "Would the D.I.'s (Drill Instructors) please quit throwing rocks at the bunkers!".

I have used
FNC1
FNC2
303
.22
9 mm handgun
all with live ammo, and FNC1, FNC2 also many times with blanks on field exercises.
a simulated M-16 with Kick (via a stick attached) at Fort Knox Kentucky.
Have used M-60 with blanks.

I have blown up cars, trees, welded structures (simulate bridge joints) with C-4. It is fun to play with Army equipment.

None of it should be available to the public.

joepistole
12-18-12, 04:27 PM
@ Billvon,

My definition might not be popular with Americans in general, as I feel all handguns should be solely for law enforcement.

I think it is common sense. Think common sense and you will see my opinion clearly. There is no reason anybody should own a firearm imho that is not for killing game. It might be too late in countries like the USA as everyone already has one under their pillow but in countries like mine I hope we never see that kind of distribution.

@ Electric Fetus,
I don't care if the gun has a 3 inch barrel and is a .22 . There is no reason for a magazine. Magazines are for killing people. PERIOD

If you are a hunter who requires a magazine on your rifle then you are either too far away or a lousy shot and should consider bowling instead.

I don’t know your country. But in the US, it is a vast land and people here keep guns for many reasons, including self-defense. When your nearest neighbor is miles away and police services are hours if not days away, people have to protect themselves. There are areas in this country where because of distance and terrain you cannot count on your neighbors or police for security. So self-defense is a legitimate use of guns in this country. People in some areas need to be able to protect themselves not only from criminals but wild animals as well (.e.g. bears, mountain lions, wolves, etc.). And then you have the “preppers” like Ms. Lanza who accumulate weapons in anticipation of a catastrophic social collapse – a variation of the self-defense need.

R1D2
12-18-12, 04:33 PM
My definition might not be popular with Americans in general, as I feel all handguns should be solely for law enforcement....

I don't care if the gun has a 3 inch barrel and is a .22 . There is no reason for a magazine. Magazines are for killing people. PERIOD

If you are a hunter who requires a magazine on your rifle then you are either too far away or a lousy shot and should consider bowling instead.

You are insulting me. You know nothing about guns in general. And I have neither the time right now or the capability to argue with you. I wish I knew you outside of sci I would enlighten you. but sadly you must remain in the dark. Even most bolt action rifles fire with magazines. BB guns have internal magazines on most of them.

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 04:42 PM
So an Uzi submachine gun with a barrel that is .3" shorter would not be an assault weapon, but a Remington 700 deer rifle (detachable magazine) IS an assault weapon? The Uzi would be legal but the Remington wouldn't?

(Not saying that's what you intended; just pointing out the difficulty of defining things like "assault weapons.")

A semi-auto locked (mini or micro) uzi is no different from any other semi-auto pistol, why anyone would want a full size uzi that locked in semi-auto, when they can get a much lighter gun that shots the same? If semi-auto locked uzi are being purchased and then unlocked to full auto then a special law would need to be passed to outlaw them and any other particular model of gun that easily being made into full auto, and of course making such a modification should be illegal, heck even any detachable modification to a gun that makes a rate of fire greater then can be achieve via pushing the trigger repeatedly by physical will should be made illegal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0BgLk1i9yY)

Sale, production and ownership of magazines with capacities greater then 10 bullet cartridges should be made illegal.

and a Remington Model 700 is bolt action, not semi-auto. If the each round has to be manually fed, magazine capacity is sort of irrelevant. If I didn't specific that then:

"Any full auto or semi-auto weapon that has ammo stored in detectable magazines, with muzzle energies over 1000 joules and barrel lengths exceeding 25.4 cm or 10 inchs, are illegal for civilian purchase or ownership"

Do I need to define semi-auto and and auto then:

"Any weapon that produces one or more projectiles upon depression of a trigger and then loads the next round(s) automatically, with detectable magazines, muzzle energies over 1000 joules and barrel lengths exceeding 25.4 cm or 10 inchs, are illegal for civilian purchase or ownership"

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 04:42 PM
@ Joepistole,

I understand your view. Even the odd horse needs to be put down. I still think Magazines are not necessary. If you want to defend yourself then a Manually loaded Hunting Rifle should be fine. I have chased off Coyotes from a Farm in the past and some predators can be scary. I have personally seen a grizzly bear, A Moose, Elk, a Deer as big as a moose, and of course fat black bears are common sightings at any dump north of the city.

I'm going to find a picture of the AR15/M16 just to show people here.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_21XC-B9cfbE/R98mvOpihFI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/0n8ZZPBiYGQ/s400/M16_2.jpg

Defending your family from a Town Ass is fine enough with a normal hunting rifle. One shot into his leg might slow him down some.

This lunatic got his hands on a military grade weapon recently. I will say again. Loading manually would allow a hero a chance at saving people.

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 04:56 PM
@ R1D2,
I know more about rifles than most. I am actually hesitant to call them GUNS because I was trained that a Gun was anything over 2000 pounds. Untrue, but basically the military frowned on the term gun when referring to a rifle, and that saying was shoved in your face if you said gun. I could strip down an FN and put it back together in about a minute back in the day. We always kept our Breach blocks separate from the rifles in case of robbery.

I was cross rifle/crowns and my rifle coach competed in England and I was a great shot. The trick is to NEVER move your left Elbow for grouping, etc.

I think I know more than you think I know.

I have used bolt action rifles with magazines. In an earlier post I said the 303 jammed so frequently it might as well be manually loaded, and I could care less about bb guns. Let them keep their internal magazines.

You copied this from me.

My definition might not be popular with Americans in general,

and then said I insult you. I insult your entire countries policies on handguns and rifles with magazines.

I have cleaned my share of barrels in my day so doubt you can say I know little about rifles. Knowing more about rifles than me might be more common in America, but I am no stranger to them. It was not legal to fire the FN's in the city so we frequented Winona range, and Base Borden.

Here is FN version
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/8356/save0001ta0.jpg

and I know as much about that weapon as anybody ever has, and have slept with the damn thing.


I don't see what is so hard to grasp about magazines being dangerous. Civilian weapons should have some mechanism that stops the gun for at least 1 minute between each shot. Whether you are shooting a Cougar, a Deer, a Bear, or your uncle Frank there is no need for rapid fire. If you want it for fun go sit on a roller coaster. Red Dawn is only a movie.

Semi automatics for civilians is insane, insane, insane.

joepistole
12-18-12, 05:11 PM
@ Joepistole,

I understand your view. Even the odd horse needs to be put down. I still think Magazines are not necessary. If you want to defend yourself then a Manually loaded Hunting Rifle should be fine. I have chased off Coyotes from a Farm in the past and some predators can be scary. I have personally seen a grizzly bear, A Moose, Elk, a Deer as big as a moose, and of course fat black bears are common sightings at any dump north of the city.

I'm going to find a picture of the AR15/M16 just to show people here.

Defending your family from a Town Ass is fine enough with a normal hunting rifle. One shot into his leg might slow him down some.

This lunatic got his hands on a military grade weapon recently. I will say again. Loading manually would allow a hero a chance at saving people.

Military grade is full automatic. The weapons under discussion are semi-automatic. The weapons used in Newtown and other mass murder sites were semi-automatic weapons. Military grade weapons (fully automatic) require a special permit and have not been used in these mass murder events. The assault rifles we are discussing are semi-automatic rifles that look like military riffles. Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 05:43 PM
I understand that Semi-automatic weapons are popular. I also have said I was capable of converting the FNC1 into fully automatic with a matchhead placed inside.

This is a young Indiana lady firing your AR15/M16 (version of) semi-automatic. Semi automatic simply means it is ready to fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger again. In ways it is more effective to aim and kill using semi-automatic. Fully automatic would rarely even be used in wartime.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI
(This is the weapon type that was used to kill the children at close range)

All I am saying is that it would slow down the entire firing process if the user had to manually load a bullet each time.

Even the bolt action rifles had magazines, but at least you had to perform a function to lose your casing and reload. I even think they are too much.

Here is the same girl firing a 50 cal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVMoOLh92S4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=7BLAf_o3MUU
It is against the Geneva convention to use a 50 Caliper on a person during a war. How do these people get access?
just the sound of it is crazy loud.

That looks like it can hold 20-30 rounds in that magazine? What was the recent death toll at the latest mass shooting?

You know you're a Redneck when,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?132802-Some-facts-about-guns-in-the-US&p=3028618#post3028618

billvon
12-18-12, 05:52 PM
A semi-auto locked (mini or micro) uzi is no different from any other semi-auto pistol, why anyone would want a full size uzi that locked in semi-auto, when they can get a much lighter gun that shots the same?

Exactly.


"Any weapon that produces one or more projectiles upon depression of a trigger and then loads the next round(s) automatically, with detectable magazines, muzzle energies over 1000 joules and barrel lengths exceeding 25.4 cm or 10 inchs, are illegal for civilian purchase or ownership"

Right - but it's that AND that's causing the problem. Shorter barrels are legal no matter what their mechanism or magazine capacity because then the statement is invalid. Lower muzzle energies make full-autos legal. Did you mean OR?

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 06:45 PM
Right - but it's that AND that's causing the problem. Shorter barrels are legal no matter what their mechanism or magazine capacity because then the statement is invalid. Lower muzzle energies make full-autos legal. Did you mean OR?

Full auto should be outlawed all together, that should be a separate sentence. Any specific semi-auto that can be easily modified to full auto should be illegal and any modification kits to make a gun fire rounds without having to squeeze the trigger for each round should be illegal. If its semi-auto it must have a barrel that does not excess 10 inch or muzzle velocity greater then 1000 joules to have a detachable magazine. And finally magazines detachable or not should not exceed 10 rounds.

Kittamaru
12-18-12, 07:05 PM
We should also ban cars that do over 60 MPH because of how many people are killed by drunk drivers and teenagers that loose control of their vehicles... right? Same type of logic as you are applying to semi-auto weapons...

billvon
12-18-12, 07:27 PM
We should also ban cars that do over 60 MPH because of how many people are killed by drunk drivers and teenagers that loose control of their vehicles... right?

Or perhaps ban cars without seatbelts, airbags and brake lights.

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 08:25 PM
We should also ban cars that do over 60 MPH because of how many people are killed by drunk drivers and teenagers that loose control of their vehicles... right? Same type of logic as you are applying to semi-auto weapons...

We do have speed limits, and of course you need a license to drive, and (auto) insurance to own a car, in US you need neither for to use or own a gun.

R1D2
12-18-12, 08:44 PM
Sale, production and ownership of magazines with capacities greater then 10 bullet cartridges should be made illegal.

and a Remington Model 700 is bolt action, not semi-auto. If the each round has to be manually fed, magazine capacity is sort of irrelevant. If I didn't specific that then:

"Any full auto or semi-auto weapon that has ammo stored in detectable magazines, with muzzle energies over 1000 joules and barrel lengths exceeding 25.4 cm or 10 inches, are illegal for civilian purchase or ownership"

Do I need to define semi-auto and full auto to them:


I think S/he meant the Remington model 750 semi auto. Comes with a 4 round clip. You add 1 in the chamber then put on the clip. You have 5 rounds. My friend had one. He only used the 4 clip without the chambered round for hunting. In my state you may hunt with one in the chamber and a 4 round clip, in the rifle maximum. A 10 round clip I could agree with being illegal. Except I had a 22 that loaded 10 in the clip and one in the chamber. Great for squirrel hunting. And those 30 round military magazines are easy to come by. The AR used in Connecticut was not converted, it was semi auto. And I hope no one here has to have the definition of semi auto and full auto given here. If so look it up. I will say those that have military grade weapons here most states require a strict permit. And those weapons are expensive. And if caught with out proper permits you may not like what's done. Now I will say that maybe rifles and shotguns and such should require back ground checks here like they do for pistols. And make that person wait 7-10 days like they do for pistols as well.

R1D2
12-18-12, 08:51 PM
We do have speed limits, and of course you need a license to drive, and (auto) insurance to own a car, in US you need neither for to use or own a gun.

There is a hunters safety course. And there are places you can take a class to learn about a weapon before you buy it. And there is military that helps teach you about weapons. And there are concealed weapons courses. And side arm carry courses. Hunting licenses. Permits for certain weapons as well.

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 09:05 PM
Well then the 750 should not be legal, either that or the magazine is built in and has to be loaded to capacity manually from above. A hunter does not need detachable magazines: he's going to have plenty of time between finding one prey and another to load his gun, a psycho killer though can't kill more children during the time he has to load round after round into a fix magazine.

I think checking all gun purchasers backgrounds and psychology is a must, waiting periods to do the checking and registration as well. Heckmandatory gun training and insurance too, we can get around the 2nd amendment by giving out steep fines for lacking training and insurance rather then taking away the guns. Insurance companies are likely not going to charge as much for hunting rifles and shot guns as handguns, and gun insurance might cover you for accidental self injuries that health insurance companies might drop you for.


There is a hunters safety course. And there are places you can take a class to learn about a weapon before you buy it. And there is military that helps teach you about weapons. And there are concealed weapons courses. And side arm carry courses. Hunting licenses. Permits for certain weapons as well.

These are not mandatory under federal law.

pjdude1219
12-18-12, 09:05 PM
quick fyi people you'd probably lower the dead and wounded if you required weapons to be full auto rather than semi-automatic. automatic weapons espeacially assualt rifles are inaccurate as all hell. that why the military uses them for suppression and not actual killing. even with a gun like the m-16 known for it low recoil it becomes net to impossible to hit an aimed target with full auto. for killing large groups of people quickly you'd want a semi automatic for the accuracy. yes if this was the case a larger percentage of the people hit would die but over all the casuality numbers would more than likely go down.



also just for the people who didn't think the US was sane to begin with. it is in fact legal to own a minigun in the states provided they were manufactured prior to a certain date. there are only like 30 or 40 that quailify but they are out there. also flamethrowers are legal in some areas.

ElectricFetus
12-18-12, 09:12 PM
quick fyi people you'd probably lower the dead and wounded if you required weapons to be full auto rather than semi-automatic. automatic weapons especially assault rifles are inaccurate as all hell. that why the military uses them for suppression and not actual killing. even with a gun like the m-16 known for it low recoil it becomes net to impossible to hit an aimed target with full auto. for killing large groups of people quickly you'd want a semi automatic for the accuracy. yes if this was the case a larger percentage of the people hit would die but over all the casuality numbers would more than likely go down.

First off: most full auto guns can be set to semi-auto with a flick of a usually ambidextrous switch on the grip, burst fire as also a third option. Second if you have a pile of children just meters away from you full auto would get the job done faster then semi-auto, not need for accuracy. Finally, you can watch many a youtube videos of people drilling human size target at 15-50 m, so clearly it accurate enough to turn someone into Swiss cheese without wasting bullets (other then the fact the person was dead already with a quarter of the bullets you put in him, the other bullets are the definition of "over kill") in an urban terror situation

kwhilborn
12-18-12, 11:55 PM
@ R1D2,
So do people surrender their weapons at a certain age, or are sanity tests required every ten years.

I have no problem with stringent permits for people allowed firearms although I maintain that magazines are unnecessary for hunting. Even bolt action rifles that require you to perform an action between shots to lose the casing, and load the rifle, allow it to load too quickly in my opinion for civilian use.

This recent mass shooting was done with a stolen rifle from my understanding.

Q) How do you grant permits to a thief?
A) You Do Not. They just take what they want and then have a lot of firepower.

If you can think of a foolproof system for keeping rifles from lunatics then present it. Here is a few.
a) Have guns require fingerprints similar to the 007 gun.
b) Have gun storage at a government facility and permit holders can sign out their weapons.
(so many hunters just store everything at their hunting cottage unattended half the year.)
c) Design home rifles for1 shot with a complicated loading procedure. (Muskets kept homes safe).
d) have tiny GPS broadcasters built into each weapon and if the weapon deviates from storage area or registered hunting plan the police investigate.
(Hikers in large parks often must file their routes for emergency reasons. Similar thing here)
e) Have rifles require a code to operate that is granted by a government office via cellphone, that must be renewwed monthly.
f) a rifle case that destroys vital parts of the rifle if the wrong combination or force is used to open it.

There is 6 ideas off the top of my head that would allow people to have their heavy duty firearms, but the technology does not exist yet for several of them. I am at least trying to think of ways to help sportsmen keep their weapons, but your country has some serious weapon issues.

It is not the people with permits doing the mass killings (unsure). It is people who are getting rifles illegally.

If someone breaks into my home there is a good chance they don't have a firearm because I live in Canada, and could probably chase them off with a bat. In America the odds of a home invader being unarmed are a lot worse.

@ kittamaru,

Cars are not designed to kill people and can be a necessity for some. Military rifles are designed to kill humans. They are very quick to reload and can kill at a distance of a mile if such a shot was accurate.

Most people can live their lives happily without ever seeing a rifle/handgun.

Most people need cars or at least buses for transportation. Many would die without vehicles for living.

I suppose however that sanity testing would also be prudent, and when you must submit to sanity testing for your drivers license in 10 years remember the idea came from you.

I did not expect you to write something so blatantly lacking in common sense. It is nowhere near a fair comparison.
Cars vs rifles? Maybe we should ban water because people drown. This makes as much sense.

ElectricFetus
12-19-12, 12:44 AM
If you can think of a foolproof system for keeping rifles from lunatics then present it. Here is a few.
a) Have guns require fingerprints similar to the 007 gun.
b) Have gun storage at a government facility and permit holders can sign out their weapons.
(so many hunters just store everything at their hunting cottage unattended half the year.)
c) Design home rifles for1 shot with a complicated loading procedure. (Muskets kept homes safe).
d) have tiny GPS broadcasters built into each weapon and if the weapon deviates from storage area or registered hunting plan the police investigate.
(Hikers in large parks often must file their routes for emergency reasons. Similar thing here)
e) Have rifles require a code to operate that is granted by a government office via cellphone, that must be renewwed monthly.
f) a rifle case that destroys vital parts of the rifle if the wrong combination or force is used to open it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n1kT_8vKE]An RFID in a ring on your finger could be used to open a safe or unlock a gun automatically

You were saying?

Asguard
12-19-12, 01:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n1kT_8vKE]An RFID in a ring on your finger could be used to open a safe or unlock a gun automatically

You were saying?

And that stops domestic violence from escalating to a shooting or this women's son shooting her in her bed and stealing the guns how?

ElectricFetus
12-19-12, 01:14 AM
And that stops domestic violence from escalating to a shooting or this women's son shooting her in her bed and stealing the guns how?

I'm not a gun advocate, I would love to see guns outlawed in the USA, its just not likely to happen any time this century! There are many realistic measures like required gun locks, that would reduce, not stop, gun injuries and fatalities, that we could see sometime soon. In theory if she locked her guns up and did not tell her son how to access them, she would be alive, 6 other adults would still be alive and 20 children would still be alive.

Asguard
12-19-12, 01:18 AM
or he would have hit her on the head and stolen her RF tag off her wrist and got her guns and killing continues as happened. Or if hes bigger than her he could have dragged her to the cupboard and forced her to unlock it. That's not secure

Bells
12-19-12, 03:42 AM
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/12/18/1226539/862013-guns.JPG

[Source (http://www.news.com.au/world/utah-boy-11-takes-gun-to-school-after-newtown-school-shooting/story-fndir2ev-1226540399971)]


Disturbing, to say the least.

Asguard
12-19-12, 03:52 AM
actually I find the rate of Australian guns disturbing though i wonder if that includes those target pistols which really can only be used for competition shooting, paint ball guns (which are regulated here) etc

we should be much closer to that 54 of the UK

Stoniphi
12-19-12, 07:08 AM
Just a couple of points I haven't seen referenced here yet:

The US ATF is forbidden to release the statistics it has gathered on guns and gun related problems due to being shackled by congress under pressure from the NRA. :( What about freeing the information?

A fellow in Canada was in the outhouse last year when a black bear grabbed his pants and pulled him out preparatory to eating him. His companion heard his screams from inside the house proper, grabbed a pistol, ran out and shot the bear several times, rescuing his friend. There are a lot of other stories like that out there too. (My dad was American and my mom was Canadian. There is no need here for arrogance. There are plenty of firearms in Canada too.)

The US has closed a bunch of mental institutions in the last few decades leaving seriously mentally ill persons to wander around doing whatever they wish, including killing a bunch of other people. Perhaps it is time to reopen some of those insane asylums because...some people ARE insane and need to be kept confined so as to minimize their ability to harm themselves or to kill other people. :o

R1D2
12-19-12, 08:02 AM
Can't argue with stubbornness. Can't change a mind that refuses to change. No reason to keep insinuating a 180 change. If someone wants a weapon someone will get it. There is the black market, gangs, cartels, robbery. Best way to prevent a theft of firearms is to lock them in a safe. Use the gun locks given and sold. Secure them.
We have a right to have them. And if a country or even the US ever attacked the people. Then I would hope to have A or my weapon. Not have it locked at a local Police Station or something.
Background checks for rifles and other "long guns" are different then background checks for pistols. That is what needs to change.

kwhilborn
12-19-12, 09:07 AM
@ Stonephi,
Yes. I am sure there are firearms here. I have never seen a handgun on the street in my life or even a registered pistol for that matter. I think it is funny we even rate a comparison, but feel free. We do have gangs, and they are getting guns, and we know from where.

ElectricFetus
12-19-12, 10:07 AM
or he would have hit her on the head and stolen her RF tag off her wrist and got her guns and killing continues as happened. Or if hes bigger than her he could have dragged her to the cupboard and forced her to unlock it. That's not secure

The chances of his killing spree occurring would have been reduced, for example if it was a combo lock, or the key was hidden. You have to agree that with more regulations the probability these events happen would reduce. Of course the chances would go down the most by making guns illegal and removing them from circulation, but realistically that not going to happen in the USA.

Bells
12-19-12, 10:19 AM
We should also ban cars that do over 60 MPH because of how many people are killed by drunk drivers and teenagers that loose control of their vehicles... right? Same type of logic as you are applying to semi-auto weapons...

To be allowed to drive a car, even at 60 MPH, you have to do a certain amount of hours of lessons, sit and pass numerous tests, you have to provide a range of ID's, social security number and a range of other information. And this is just to get the license.

Once you have obtained your driver's license, the police can stop you and check your license and run a check on you, they can stop you and check your car, check to see if you are drunk or stoned and if you are, they can arrest you.

To purchase a gun in the US, one can simply attend a gun show and provide one piece of photo ID and that's that.. You can walk out with a semi-automatic weapon, no questions asked.

And it is absolutely legal.

Adam Lanza's mother believed the world was going to end so she was paranoid and stockpiled food, water and an arsenal of weapons in her home.

No one asked or check on her psychological state and if they did, apparently being paranoid does not warrant extra scrutiny before allowing her to purchase her weapons.

No one also thought or sought to ask or question the safety of those weapons knowing she had a mentally ill child in the house.. In fact, she even took her son's shooting, and no one thought to ask her why she would take a mentally ill boy shooting.

So I have to ask you Kittamaru..

Why do people (average citizens) in the US need semi-automatic weapons?

GeoffP
12-19-12, 10:56 AM
If they continue to remain available (NRA), then proper psychological screening needs to be mandatory.

Then again, it's still easy to get them illegally. That argument gets punched for legalizing drugs. Is there a reason not to advance it here?

Cowboy
12-24-12, 02:24 AM
I'm wishy-washy on this issue. I hate gun violence (obviously) but I also don't like the idea of telling citizens they can't own guns.

Let me put this out there: would a ban on semi-automatic weapons not end any hope for a revolution? Not saying we need one, but we might in the future.

A ban on semi-autos wouldn't make defending yourself from an oppressive government impossible, but it would be much more difficult.

Aqueous Id
12-24-12, 06:30 AM
A ban on semi-autos wouldn't make defending yourself from an oppressive government impossible, but it would be much more difficult.

This goes back to the cost in human lives to buy the right to "be ready" for the return of King George III.

Stoniphi
12-24-12, 07:31 AM
... I have never seen a handgun on the street in my life or even a registered pistol for that matter. I think it is funny we even rate a comparison, but feel free...

Guess you haven't been to Montreal in the last couple of decades. :o Hells Angels and friends have been blowing each other away for quite some time there. There are a lot of firearms in N Ontario, but you gotta be out there and looking around to see them. Hint: the pickup truck with the dead moose in the back is a great place to start. ;)

kwhilborn
12-24-12, 11:38 AM
@ Stonephi,
I get around quite well, and have seen registered hunting rifles in my life. I still can say I have lived my entire life without seeing a handgun in public registered or not. I have used a 9mm Pistol on the range, however that was not a public area.

Toronto has Gangs as well that use firearms, but they mainly shoot each other late at night. I have never heard a gunshot in public.

We do have shootings. Canada even has mass murders in schools. I can still say I have never seen or heard a public handgun (not rifle). I have seen hunters use firearms and have chased away coyotes from a farm in my youth with intent to kill them using a rifle.

I was almost killed by a moose. Not because the moose attacked, but because the motorist in front of me dropped from 100km/hr to 30km/hr "to get a better look". I never slammed into him, but was not expecting it on a clear highway.

Hells Angels and most gangs get their weapons from places other than Canada. I am not going to say where, as I don't want them to get any ideas. Then they simply drive them across the border hidden with their oranges.

iceaura
12-24-12, 01:00 PM
Disturbing, to say the least. Gun ownership per capita is a misleading stat - for one thing, the US is a wealthy country with an unusually large proportion of ex-military folks and wealthy rural residents. We have a lot of people who own many guns each, and they skew the averages. We also have a high proportion of people with some discretionary income living by themselves or in couples, which adds another factor to the calculations of "average".

The rate of gun ownership among the middle and upper classes, the proportion of people who can afford a gun who own a gun, is not so much of an outlier. The proportion of households in which a gun is present is even closer to the reassuringly normal range.

pjdude1219
12-24-12, 09:24 PM
A ban on semi-autos wouldn't make defending yourself from an oppressive government impossible, but it would be much more difficult.

if you need a gun to defend yourself from the government you have already failed. the best way to defend one's self from an oppressive government is an education and effective use of knowledge to prevent government from being oppressive( of course you and I probably have very different ideas of constitutes oppressive government

Stoniphi
12-25-12, 08:07 AM
I must also admit that I have never seen a handgun on the street, not even in downtown Detroit, even though we have an "open carry" law here. I have and carry one myself on occasion, but it is for self defense, not show and tell or public display (inappropriate showing of a pistol is called "brandishing" and it can get you prison time as well as loss of your pistol license. :o ) I have heard handguns as well as shotguns and rifles at the shooting range. I have heard flintlocks and muzzle - loaders at historic reenactments and have a wonderful recording of the 1812 done with French mortars. :) Have also heard a building blow up from a natural gas leak. That was really loud....blew out the eardrums of a fellow that happened to be driving by then.

I have a friend who ate a dozen oranges at the border rather than give them to the customs folks who wanted to take them away from him though.

The tv tells me that the Montreal HA's expanded their turf into the Netherlands some few years back, and brought along their own special type of ultra-violence as well. They bought their guns there though, they didn't have to import them, and the other gangsters they exchange gunfire with are indigenous to the area. :o

The US/Canada border is not as porous as it used to be. I cross it every once in a while and can personally testify that it would be very hard to smuggle arms across it these days. BOTH sides of the border are much more serious nowadays. :( Lots of cops with guns, x - ray trucks and the like. Sioux Ste Marie Canadian side had about 15 OPP out in the traffic lanes a couple months ago pulling over anyone that even looked just a little suspicious to them and grilling every driver that was on the way over the bridge. We have Pass card passports that are linked to all of our public records so Canadian and US officials are all aware that I have a concealed carry license when they ask the usual questions after swiping those cards on the computer. They also know I am not a felon and have a clean record.

I have no knowledge about firearms manufacture in Canada, and mostly assumptions about their manufacture in that 'elsewhere' you keep mentioning. ;) I am aware that the going price of an AK 47 in Africa is about $15 US though. Also that that weapon is the most common semi - automatic rifle on the planet. Don't know where those are made do you? :shrug: They do turn up around here frequently...maybe they are made in Windsor? (j/k)

Also Uzi, Luger, Beretta...just off the top of my head. (I own a Beretta, that is the concealed carry pistol I mentioned above.) Those are still made in Europe and they are pretty popular pretty much everywhere. Like I said before - no need for red herrings, there is plenty of blame to go around.

kwhilborn
12-25-12, 10:24 AM
@ Stonephi,
I was surprised you also had never seen a handgun in public. Maybe it is not as insane there as all the statistics say it is?

I also live close to the border, but not as close as you. I do the Niagara crossing an hour away quite often. I have never had my car searched intensely. I think on my last crossing they asked to see my ashtray which was empty as I do not smoke. I shouldn't say that, I would partake in a joint if offered, but don't have any vices. I thought it was a clever way to catch someone who may be smoking pot. They handed my ashtray back to me and I drove through. My Mother is of English decent and until passports/permits were mandatory she never showed her passport. If they have dogs that smell gunpowder, and x-ray machines large enough to scan my car accurately enough to detect a handgun inside my spare tire or under the backseat or in my oilpan, I do not know.

I feel confident crossing with Oranges now. They got me once, but since then whenever I have gone camping south we have simply hid the Oranges better. If caught I would claim it was an oversight, but it has not happened.

There are many border crossings west of the great lakes that are basically one man operations. I recall crossing in North Dakota, and I had to wait for the Border to Open and then deal with a Grumpy Canadian Border guy who seemed like he didn't want to let me back into my own country. Don't ever deal with a Canadian before they have their coffee.

Stoniphi
12-25-12, 12:38 PM
I must blushingly admit that is is actually not as bad as a lot of press has made it out to be. I must also freely admit that I trade on our reputation as needed to avoid confrontations elsewhere. :o

Once, 3 young toughs in a bar in Manhattan attempted to start an altercation with me by confronting me and stating "You are not from around here. Where the **** are you from." I fixed the speaker with a cold-blooded-murderer stare deadpan and said real clear and hard "Detroit". He quickly apologized and the 3 of them went their merry way. :) 'Course I also have a lot of self confidence - with good reason - and it isn't a gun in my pocket. ;)

Yeah, you must know where to go and where not to go. Also, how to not look like a victim if you do go to one of those areas you shouldn't go.

I got searched by a drug sniffer dog at the Buffalo border once, but he went for the French bread in my grocery bag in the trunk. :mad: I yelled at the handler, told him I was going to bill him for letting his dog eat my lunch. Detroit/Windsor has strip searched me, both sides have put me through the shredder on occasion, but usually it is because I have a brother and nephews in Ontario as well as friends and business relations. For some reason the border guards on both sides really don't much care for Americans and Canadians traveling together or being related. :shrug: Its a puzzler for sure.

There are some extraordinary fossil hunting locales near you, BTW. I am very fond of trilobites myself.

I have a nice photo my son took of me standing in front of the U of Guelph cannabis grow in Morpeth while we were attending my nephew's wedding. There were over 50 OPP officers present as the bride's dad was the Chief of the area OPP force and my nephew is a road patrol officer on the QEW.

The big deal with the oranges is the Med fly, and that is no longer such an issue as it once was. Of course, LEO is slow to change.

I gotta add that the population of the Detroit metro area has gone from 3.5 million to 750 thousand in the last 10 years and that we have the most "minorities" in the whole nation so things get real complicated here a lot. We are also an MMJ state. While I do not smoke anything myself, I have several friends who have cancer and have green cards. I am also very familiar with the Ontario MMJ/possession rules. This (border crossing bullhockey) too shall change soon. :)

EDIT: My car has no ashtray to search. The last in the sticks crossing we did was from Minnesota going to Thunder Bay. The CA guard asked if we were Native as the Mohawk had a demonstration going on there. I said no, but it was a lie sorta as I am part Cherokee. We weren't there for the demo though, but I honked the truck horn at the demonstrators in support as we went past anyways. The x-ray truck at the Sioux was big enough to do whole vehicles and did so, 4 at a time.

Tiassa
12-27-12, 06:33 PM
Frightened!
Public gun data published in NY; dismay naturally includes threats

A New York newspaper, The Journal News (http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-), has published online the public data, obtained under Freedom of Information requests, of registered gun owners in three counties.

Naturally, gun owners are furious. Online comments (http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-) include implied threats—


• How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families... (George Thompson)

• A map of the editorial staff and publishers should come with a note to indicate if they own any firearms or not. (Mike Ra)

—and the usual psycho anticipation—


• I'm for your idea. Lets see how those dots move once that information is published. I can't believe these a$$hats published this info. Clean up your hardware, stock up on ammo. It may turn out to be handy, just sit there and wait for the libs to show up. Like shooting fish in a barrel. (Pamela Thomas Hickey)

—as well as the generic Nazi comparisons, pretensions that legally registered guns are perfectly safe, and other such mild outrage.

It is a curious move for a newspaper. To the one, these are public records germane to a safety issue currently saturating the news cycle. To the other, yes, of course there are reasons why people who own guns want to keep their firearms a secret.

But there is an underlying point worth considering here; Cienna Madrid (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/26/gun-owners-outraged-at-being-identified-as-gun-owners), of The Stranger, explains, in the weekly newspaper's usual forthright tone:


But it also underscores the biggest hurdle for gun control proponents: Gun owners, like Christians, thrive on their own fictionalized victimhood. They're itching for any opportunity to feel oppressed and subjugated because it justifies their arsenals. This simple map does just that—transforms them into helplessly armed sitting ducks waiting for the armies of (unarmed) liberals storming their houses looking to replace their guns with daisies (or whateverthefuck).

Imagine having a conversation about gun control with someone like that—a person who continuously brays about their Constitutional right to cultivate closet arsenals but, of course, condemns a newspaper's Constitutional right to publish that publicly accessed information, and then responds with threats of violence.

One cannot put too fine a point on it: There is a yellow streak of fear and violence running through the American gun culture, and when it comes time for people to weigh the potentials of what the Second Amendment actually says and means, these sorts of predictable outbursts from the gun culture won't be found winning them any sympathy.

As for The News Journal? Well, I can't believe I didn't think of this years ago. The ethical debate is an abstraction: for the time being, this is a legal publication of the public record.
____________________

Notes:

Journal News Media Group. "Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?" December 22, 2012. LoHud.com. December 27, 2012. http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

Madrid, Cienna. "Gun Owners Outraged at Being Identified as Gun Owners". Slog. December 26, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. December 27, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/26/gun-owners-outraged-at-being-identified-as-gun-owners

GeoffP
12-28-12, 06:54 PM
if you need a gun to defend yourself from the government you have already failed.

Couldn't agree more.

The American Revolutionary War was a shambles, and a failure of conscience.

We accept you back with open arms.

GeoffP
12-28-12, 07:04 PM
A New York newspaper, The Journal News (http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-), has published online the public data, obtained under Freedom of Information requests, of registered gun owners in three counties.

Naturally, such information would never be used by criminals to steal guns from homes in exactly the manner that opponents of gun ownership claim they would be. Nor would people, say, living next door to such people come to any harm from the publication of such data, in the event that particularly stupid criminals - of which there are none - would mistake an address.

It might well be an issue of the public record. Then again, that hardly means it isn't actionable.

iceaura
12-28-12, 07:09 PM
if you need a gun to defend yourself from the government you have already failed. That is very true. Preparing oneself for the possibility of such failure has long been considered prudent, in many circles - such as the ones that wrote the US Constitution, or the ones that took a long hard look at the immediate aftermath of Katrina.

As far as publishing the names and addresses of people on currently disparaged sides of emotional political issues - when that tactic was adopted by abortion rights opponents, it was interpreted as a direct physical threat. Rightly so, IMHO.

Asguard
12-28-12, 07:21 PM
That is very true. Preparing oneself for the possibility of such failure has long been considered prudent, in many circles - such as the ones that wrote the US Constitution, or the ones that took a long hard look at the immediate aftermath of Katrina.

As far as publishing the names and addresses of people on currently disparaged sides of emotional political issues - when that tactic was adopted by abortion rights opponents, it was interpreted as a direct physical threat. Rightly so, IMHO.

2 differences, has anyone been going around bombing gun shops and killing gun owners?
Secondly medical records are confidential for a good reason (in fact they are the most confidential Infomation and carry the harshest penelties for breachs after national security Infomation) this I just public Infomation

R1D2
12-31-12, 08:20 AM
....
Also Uzi, Luger, Beretta...just off the top of my head. (I own a Beretta, that is the concealed carry pistol I mentioned above.) Those are still made in Europe and they are pretty popular pretty much everywhere. Like I said before - no need for red herrings, there is plenty of blame to go around.

The Army uses a M9 Beretta. And some other military branches. The Beretta is Italian. But I think somehow the US makes those pistols for the military. I could be wrong though. But to bad when they switched pistols they didn't stick with a colt.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_pistol
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/M1911A1_and_M9_DA-SC-91-10188.jpg/220px-M1911A1_and_M9_DA-SC-91-10188.jpg

Bells
12-31-12, 09:09 AM
That is very true. Preparing oneself for the possibility of such failure has long been considered prudent, in many circles - such as the ones that wrote the US Constitution, or the ones that took a long hard look at the immediate aftermath of Katrina.


Indeed.

Mrs Lanza, as a prime example, was very well prepared.

R1D2
12-31-12, 02:25 PM
Indeed.

Mrs Lanza, as a prime example, was very well prepared.
Yes and so are many others.

Guns don't kill people by them selves.
They are a tool like a wrench.
-unk

kwhilborn
12-31-12, 07:59 PM
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE DO.

This has got to be one of the most idiotic defenses I have ever heard. They must think Americans are Morons to buy into it, but apparenty many do, so maybe it's an Intelligence/Inbreeding thing so popular in that country.

By that logic why not license and sell grenades and rocket launchers?

Sorry. I may need to address this to Non-Americans because of the apparent inbred stupidity that seems to allow them to use lines like "Guns don't Kill People. People do.".

The main arguments have been to reduce the efficiency of public killing weapons. There is no need for a hunter to have a Semi-Automatic military grade weapon.

It is true that "People do" kill people, and the more efficient the weaponry the more they can kill during any given rampage. If a weapon needed to be loaded manually for every shot, then at least the people getting slaughtered in a Movie Theatre or on the street would have an opportunity for heroism or flight.

The stupid "Guns don't kill people. People do." as a reason why military weapons should be allowed in the public's hands makes sense only to those with IQ's equivalent to that of a normal house plant.

I KNOW SEMI and FULL AUTOMATICS CAN BE FUN TO PLAY WITH. I HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS GOING TO RANGES FIRING 7.62mm ROUNDS. They load instantly, and are designed to kill people. That is their function.

It is insanity to think people actually buy into lines like that.

Americans.. (sigh)

If your father walks you to school; because you are in the same grade, you might be a redneck.

LoRaan
12-31-12, 08:37 PM
if you need a gun to defend yourself from the government you have already failed. the best way to defend one's self from an oppressive government is an education and effective use of knowledge to prevent government from being oppressive( of course you and I probably have very different ideas of constitutes oppressive government

Tell that to Holocaust survivors.

LoRaan
12-31-12, 09:05 PM
Well then the 750 should not be legal, either that or the magazine is built in and has to be loaded to capacity manually from above. A hunter does not need detachable magazines: he's going to have plenty of time between finding one prey and another to load his gun, a psycho killer though can't kill more children during the time he has to load round after round into a fix magazine.


Never even though of hunt fowl have you? The only time I have evber seen a shotgun for hunting was for fowl. You need quick reloads if you are doing it for sustenance.

However all this moot. You're talking about punishing the public for something a few individuals do. What if tomorrow you found you had to give up your car becuase some idiots got into a twenty two car pile up? Or perhaps your right to vote was stripped becuase some idiot in your county was stuffing the ballots? What if your church was suddenly outlawed becuase some said the wrong dang thing? That's the slippery slowp you get on when you make people give up a right.

James R
12-31-12, 10:14 PM
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

LoRaan
01-01-13, 12:21 AM
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

No people kill people. They will use whatever tool they feel like from their bare hands to cars to gasoline and matches to guns to baseball bats. The problem is the people not the tools.

kwhilborn
01-01-13, 02:35 AM
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE DO.

This has got to be one of the most idiotic defenses I have ever heard. They must think Americans are Morons to buy into it, but apparenty many do, so maybe it's an Intelligence/Inbreeding thing so popular in that country.

By that logic why not license and sell grenades and rocket launchers?

Sorry. I may need to address this to Non-Americans because of the apparent inbred stupidity that seems to allow them to use lines like "Guns don't Kill People. People do.".

The main arguments have been to reduce the efficiency of public killing weapons. There is no need for a hunter to have a Semi-Automatic military grade weapon.

It is true that "People do" kill people, and the more efficient the weaponry the more they can kill during any given rampage. If a weapon needed to be loaded manually for every shot, then at least the people getting slaughtered in a Movie Theatre or on the street would have an opportunity for heroism or flight.

The stupid "Guns don't kill people. People do." as a reason why military weapons should be allowed in the public's hands makes sense only to those with IQ's equivalent to that of a normal house plant.

I KNOW SEMI and FULL AUTOMATICS CAN BE FUN TO PLAY WITH. I HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS GOING TO RANGES FIRING 7.62mm ROUNDS. They load instantly, and are designed to kill people. That is their function.

It is insanity to think people actually buy into lines like that.

Americans.. (sigh)

NOTE: if this post seems identical to the post I recently made it is because it is, and people arguing the same stupid line again shows it needs repeating.
@ LoRaan, (last post),
Honestly?
You cannot see the difference between arming lunatics with a military rifle over Bare hands or a baseball bat or even a car and arson?

Bare hands, baseball bats, arson, and hit and runs are all possible, but a military grade rifle is much more efficient at killing than anything you just mentioned. A rifle bullet travelling at over 1500 MPH would hit the target much harder and faster than any car, bat, or bare hands. A person with any of those things cannot easily turn "the weapon" upon themselves to avoid prosecution.

Like I said above. Your logic would allow Rocket launchers and Grenades in peoples homes. Then you could say "Its not Rocket launchers that kill people it's People who kill people" when some lunatic fires a rocket launcher into a crowded rush hour bus. MAYBE. MAYBE. MAYBE. IF THE LUNATIC WAS FORCED TO USE A BASEBALL BAT ALL THE MEN, WOMEN< AND BABIES ON THE BUS THAT JUST GOT BLOWN UP WOULD BE ALIVE.

That is of course just off the top of my COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE does not come from inbreeding however apparently.

What a retarded argument, "people kill people". Military weapons have no role in hunting. If you can't hit the broadside of a Moose with a manual loaded gun then go back to your computer and buy your meat like normal city folk. Such Idiocy in a science forum. I thought people here were smarter than most. Go figure.

Another thing that needs reposting was the Death toll facts James R posted at the start of this thread.


1. There have been 16 mass shootings in 2012 in the United States.
2. Most US states have no owner licensing or gun registration, no requirement to provide a good reason to own a gun, no ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, and no limit on the number of such guns a person can own.
3. Following the Port Arthur massacre of 35 people in Australia in 1996, strict gun laws were introduced. Since then, the annual number of gunshot deaths has dropped by half and there have been no mass shootings. Researchers at the Australian National University estimate that the laws have saved $500 million a year and 200 lives. The population of the US is about 10 times that of Australia, so scale this up by a factor of 10 to estimate possible benefits of strict gun control.
4. In the most recent US election, most of the candidates backed by the NRA did not win their seats.
5. The day after the latest shooting (Sandy Hook), more than 100,000 people signed dozens of petitions. Campaigners are calling for two basic measures:
(a) All gun buyers pass a criminal background check, whether they are buying a new or second-hand weapon. At present most states only require background checks for buyers of new guns. Not surprisingly, a large proportion of gun sales - estimated at 40 per cent - are second-hand.
(b) A ban on civilian ownership of assault weapons, the automatic or semi-automatic firearms designed for killing large numbers of people.

Meanwhile, the gun lobby is circulating a petition that calls for a gun in every classroom, with every teacher to be armed.
6. Police data show that gun sales tend to increase after mass shootings like the one in Sandy Hook.
7. Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. In most cases, the killers obtained their weapons legally.
8. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years happened in the US.
9. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as can be seen from the examples of Israel and Switzerland.
10. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened since 2006. That doesn't include the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting.
11. America is an unusually violent country, but it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries. The US is a clear outlier, with rates well above other countries. As Healy writes, ''The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the US is than other OECD countries … and (2) the degree of change - and recently, decline - there has been in the US.''
12. Gun ownership in the US is declining. ''For all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,'' political scientist Patrick Egan, of New York University, wrote in July. ''Long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the US.''
13. More guns tend to mean more homicide, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.
14. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence (source: economist Richard Florida).
15. Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness are not correlated with more deaths from gun violence.
16. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular in the US. .... Gallup reported after a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, last year. ''In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44 per cent in favour of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.''
17. But particular policies to control guns often are. An August CNN poll asked Americans whether they favour or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular. About 90 per cent support background checks and no guns for felons or the mentally ill.
18. Shootings don't tend to substantially affect the views of Americans on gun control.

If you love your rifle because it is so much fun then join the Army. If you think it is fun to destroy stuff with your military rifle then imagine how it must also appeal to some lunatic.

I have nothing against handguns and rifles. I just think civilian weapons should require manual loading. Automatic weapons are designed for killing people, not deer. You can cry otherwise all you like, but it is a fact that all of this weaponry is from Military R&D.

This forum has turned into a discussion comparing killing effectiveness of weapons, etc., like a hobby board, yet it was meant to be somewhat anti-gun in its purpose. If these are the responses from a scientific minded crowd that is likely more educated than most in the USA I hate to see how the redneck crowds feel. Your country is doomed, and I hope they build some higher fences between our countries as we already are getting guns infiltrating from the US.

I wonder how many mass shootings occurred in the days of muskets?

Seriously! A musket is not automatic. If you killed a person with a musket you would be forced to manually reload and give the rest of the theatre/school/bus/post office a fighting chance to live.

Aqueous Id
01-01-13, 03:41 AM
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Or: Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. People pull the triggers.

Aqueous Id
01-01-13, 04:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n1kT_8vKE]An RFID in a ring on your finger could be used to open a safe or unlock a gun automatically

You were saying?

I like the application of technology to address a problem. I would like to see this guy succeed as an entrepreneur.

However I don't think the approach is adequate, and I believe weapons should be outlawed altogether by repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Still, it occurred to me you could take this a step further. All weapons could have an internal lock that only opens under strict conditions (thinking back on his software). One, the lock will not open unless the gun permit is active. Two, the weapon IDs the shooter by biometric data (ultimately DNA) and logs in every shot fired, with GPS coordinates, compass heading, and elevation angle, to an INTERPOL database. A possible extension this: a camera records and transmits the boresight video of everything being fired at, with audio. Three, the lock only opens when the shooter is the owner, and authorized to fire in the designated location. Four, in the event of home invasion, the lock only opens when a networked alarm system validates that an actual intrusion is in progress, the police have been notified, and have not responded within a statutory period of time. Five, the weapon transmits its position to the database at all times, with the biometric data of the person carrying it. Six, the weapon design passes a battery of tests for certification. Possession of an uncertified weapon is a first-degree felony, subject to life imprisonment. Tampering voids the certification. Possession of a weapon with an expired permit gets jail time and a fine. Seven, to pass certification, the weapon must report to the database that it is being tampered with. Failure of this mechanism, or any other violation, would notify the police to come collect the weapon. Legitimate failure goes to repair by government repair center, at owner's expense. Eight, any weapon not certified is illegal, subject to confiscation, fines and imprisonment. Nine, the permit would require that the weapon remain in the custody of the owner, no exceptions. Loss of custody would result in confiscation of the weapon and lifetime ban on permit. Ten, person taking custody of another person's weapon is subject to fines and imprisonment. Owner is similarly punished if deliberate intent to deliver the weapon were proven.

It would be a lot cheaper and less deadly to repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass a national ban on all weapons. However, since people are so intransigent about their perception of rights, I would support the above, or something better conceived, as an interim solution.

wellwisher
01-01-13, 07:10 AM
Maybe since guns are considered a social problem, we should do the same thing we do in schools with sex education. If we allow all the children to learn about and fire guns, even without parental permission, like we do with sex education, that should stem the problem.

leopold
01-01-13, 10:27 AM
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
the lack of guns has NEVER stopped anyone from killing.
the crusades, gengis khan, others too numerous to mention.
instead of a simple hole in the head you wind up with lobbed off heads and mutilated bodies.
in other words, murder in a gunless society will be more gruesome.
or do you actually believe you will ban murder when you ban guns.

kwhilborn
01-01-13, 11:01 AM
Do you people think before typing. It is about weapon efficiency. If a maniac starts lobbing off heads in a school, theatre, mall, post office, they may likely only kill a few. When we give Military grade automatic weapons to civilians we risk much higher death tolls when the nutcases come out.

I agree with aqueous ID though, guns should be banned outright. If you want to mass murder with a kitchen knife you'll have to get your hands dirty.

kx000
01-01-13, 11:06 AM
delete

ElectricFetus
01-01-13, 11:30 AM
the lack of guns has NEVER stopped anyone from killing.
the crusades, gengis khan, others too numerous to mention.
instead of a simple hole in the head you wind up with lobbed off heads and mutilated bodies.
in other words, murder in a gunless society will be more gruesome.
or do you actually believe you will ban murder when you ban guns.

"Guns don't kill people, they just make it easier to kill people"

Case in point on the same day of Sandy Hook Shooting, a psycho in china stab 22 kids, all survived.

As for Aqueous ID and others desire to ban all guns, its just not going to happen in the USA any time soon, I'll put a bet not even this century! More practical measure (aka more likely to actually be implement, unlike an all out gun ban) can be taken such a universal gun registration, universal background checks, gun insurance, or even simple technocratic solutions like RFID locks on guns that will prevent children for accidentally blowing their head off with daddies handgun that he hid under his bed. Such measure would reduced the death toll at least somewhat and are much more likely to be implement over a gun ban.

leopold
01-01-13, 11:38 AM
I agree with aqueous ID though, guns should be banned outright. If you want to mass murder with a kitchen knife you'll have to get your hands dirty.
easy for you to say because you aren't the one that has to clean up the mess.
i do agree that AK 47s and other types of machine guns should be outlawed outside the military.
but there is a problem.
what about semi automatics?
they can fire rounds as fast as you can operate the trigger.
should they be banned too?

in my opinion guns should NOT be banned.
they are indeed an effective deterrent to unbridled power.

the law WILL NOT prevent criminals from getting guns.
you, as a law abiding citizen, will not be able to defend yourself from the person intent on raping your wife and daughter at gunpoint.

kx000
01-01-13, 12:36 PM
Sorry. Delete my post.

Walter L. Wagner
01-01-13, 01:43 PM
I like the application of technology to address a problem. I would like to see this guy succeed as an entrepreneur.

However I don't think the approach is adequate, and I believe weapons should be outlawed altogether by repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Still, it occurred to me you could take this a step further. All weapons could have an internal lock that only opens under strict conditions (thinking back on his software). One, the lock will not open unless the gun permit is active. Two, the weapon IDs the shooter by biometric data (ultimately DNA) and logs in every shot fired, with GPS coordinates, compass heading, and elevation angle, to an INTERPOL database. A possible extension this: a camera records and transmits the boresight video of everything being fired at, with audio. Three, the lock only opens when the shooter is the owner, and authorized to fire in the designated location. Four, in the event of home invasion, the lock only opens when a networked alarm system validates that an actual intrusion is in progress, the police have been notified, and have not responded within a statutory period of time. Five, the weapon transmits its position to the database at all times, with the biometric data of the person carrying it. Six, the weapon design passes a battery of tests for certification. Possession of an uncertified weapon is a first-degree felony, subject to life imprisonment. Tampering voids the certification. Possession of a weapon with an expired permit gets jail time and a fine. Seven, to pass certification, the weapon must report to the database that it is being tampered with. Failure of this mechanism, or any other violation, would notify the police to come collect the weapon. Legitimate failure goes to repair by government repair center, at owner's expense. Eight, any weapon not certified is illegal, subject to confiscation, fines and imprisonment. Nine, the permit would require that the weapon remain in the custody of the owner, no exceptions. Loss of custody would result in confiscation of the weapon and lifetime ban on permit. Ten, person taking custody of another person's weapon is subject to fines and imprisonment. Owner is similarly punished if deliberate intent to deliver the weapon were proven.

It would be a lot cheaper and less deadly to repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass a national ban on all weapons. However, since people are so intransigent about their perception of rights, I would support the above, or something better conceived, as an interim solution.

I wonder if his invention works if the power goes out? It should have a fail-safe battery back-up to be sellable. All persons who presently own guns should have them safely secured to prevent their loss from theft. Unfortunately, such is not the case, as per the Newton massacre where the kid stole his mother's guns.

kmguru
01-01-13, 02:50 PM
You may or may not have Guns in a society - my issue is that American Indians did not have superior killing power and got eaten up....many thousand years ago, Indians killed their Kshatriya (Warrior caste), since then India was taken over by Moguls, British and many other people and lost Afghanistan to Burma....

So, have it what ever way you want....slave or master....

leopold
01-01-13, 04:04 PM
i also like the application of technology, and we definitely have the technology to make a truly personalized handgun.
i made the proposal long ago for the application of UPC codes to handguns.
the UPC code you find on food can be tattooed on your hand with a scanner built into the gun.
this idea came to me around the mid 80s and i made the suggestion 2 or 3 times.

ElectricFetus
01-01-13, 05:04 PM
I wonder if his invention works if the power goes out? It should have a fail-safe battery back-up to be sellable. All persons who presently own guns should have them safely secured to prevent their loss from theft. Unfortunately, such is not the case, as per the Newton massacre where the kid stole his mother's guns.

Could have it powered by piezoelectric switch or lever, no need for batteries, just the force of pushing the switch is enough to power it.

And handgun can have a RFID receiver built in that would only de-activate the safety when it detects the correctly coded RFID somewhere on the hand of the gun user, such as in rings, wrist bands, or even implanted in the hand.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIpmAaFjGE]

kwhilborn
01-01-13, 05:22 PM
@ Leopold,


the law WILL NOT prevent criminals from getting guns

I was including Semi-Automatics in my idea of no military weapons, but you are correct I did not say it.

Actually gun bans DO prevent criminals from getting their hands on weapons. Look at crime statistics for your country vs countries where bans take place.

I also suggested manually loaded weapons for hunting or home defense should be allowed, so if a rapist is attacking someone in home you will have at least one shot, so make it count.

My argument is strictly aimed at Military grade weapons/anything with a magazine.

Asguard
01-01-13, 05:55 PM
easy for you to say because you aren't the one that has to clean up the mess.
i do agree that AK 47s and other types of machine guns should be outlawed outside the military.
but there is a problem.
what about semi automatics?
they can fire rounds as fast as you can operate the trigger.
should they be banned too?

in my opinion guns should NOT be banned.
they are indeed an effective deterrent to unbridled power.

the law WILL NOT prevent criminals from getting guns.
you, as a law abiding citizen, will not be able to defend yourself from the person intent on raping your wife and daughter at gunpoint.

You know how often I have had to defend myself against my government? ZERO times, the government fears reelection not weapons (Ie the biggest thing you could do to ensure that the government doesn't go against the will of the people is abolish term limits)

As for defending myself or my partner, that's why we have a dog and a mobile phone. 000 to the cops and say you are in fear of your life and we got a car on our doorstep in under a min

leopold
01-01-13, 07:06 PM
You know how often I have had to defend myself against my government? ZERO times, the government fears reelection not weapons (Ie the biggest thing you could do to ensure that the government doesn't go against the will of the people is abolish term limits)
then why is the military industrial complex such a threat?
if re-elections were the answer then why do we even need the military in the first place, just abolish the old leaders and replace them with the ones of your choice and BOOM, instant conquer.
you are being unrealistic if you think diplomacy will solve all problems.

pjdude1219
01-01-13, 09:26 PM
You may or may not have Guns in a society - my issue is that American Indians did not have superior killing power and got eaten up....many thousand years ago, Indians killed their Kshatriya (Warrior caste), since then India was taken over by Moguls, British and many other people and lost Afghanistan to Burma....

So, have it what ever way you want....slave or master....

yet the vikings had superior tech too and the natives beat them back? hell some suggest had disease not weaken the native tribes the colonization of the new world would have failed.

iceaura
01-01-13, 09:26 PM
However I don't think the approach is adequate, and I believe weapons should be outlawed altogether by repeal of the 2nd Amendment. A reflection on the fact that the governments - all of them, from the town and county on up, including the rural Jim Crow counties of the Confederacy - will still have guns, might bring a pause there.

We have experience with an American disarmed citizenry, under armed (and locally armed) government: Black people in the South from 1867 until 1967, Reds on various reservations from the early 1800s until the late 1970s, Japanese people in the 1940s, etc. These are not experiences one would wish to multiply.

pjdude1219
01-01-13, 09:31 PM
A reflection on the fact that the governments - all of them, from the town and county on up, including the rural Jim Crow counties of the Confederacy - will still have guns, might bring a pause there.

We have experience with an American disarmed citizenry, under armed government: Black people in the South from 1867 until 1967, Reds on various reservations from the early 1800s until the late 1970s, Japanese people in the 1940s, etc. These are not experiences one would wish to multiply.

problem with your argument slaves for the most part weren't considered citizens neither were american indians. in fact all three of your "experiences" with disarmed citizentry were attacks on those people very citizenship, in others words not a very good example.

Tiassa
01-01-13, 09:43 PM
You know how often I have had to defend myself against my government?

In truth, Asguard, I think you're overlooking something about the American culture. For better or worse, we are infused with an anti-establishment behavior. While I accept the anti-government role of the Second Amendment, I also think of it as a secondary issue. To the other, the gun advocates see it as a primary issue. I would suggest, in such an examination, to look at it not so much as anti-enemy, but anti-something or -anything.

I've known revolutionaries who are the same way. They might get what they want—something rare, indeed—but they still demand it. The underlying neurotic conflict is the establishment giving what one wants versus the idea of the establisment in the first place. What should be a secondary goal—such as resistance against the state—becomes a primary goal. In this case, the would-be revolutionaries become part of the problem.

As we've seen in recent years, the idea of having a gun to protect against the government in the U.S. is to wave one's gun in order to protest the governing of America.

This is a neurosis that people will outgrow much sooner than their phallocentric surrogate of guns, guns, guns. That is, they'll eventually find a different target. (Watch the social conservatvies on that one; either the bestials or the incetuous are up next, since they're losing their fight agaisnt the gay.)

That is to say, people will look for something to shoot long after they've gotten over their need to kill a black man or a government agent in the name of Crispus Attucks.

Thus, your point, while well taken, is a bit overstated.

iceaura
01-01-13, 11:43 PM
problem with your argument slaves for the most part weren't considered citizens neither were american indians. in fact all three of your "experiences" with disarmed citizentry were attacks on those people very citizenship, All three of those examples were of legal American citizens who were both disarmed and abused by various levels of government.

The apparent lesson of such events was not lost on the more fortunate races and demographic groups who were their neighbors - and with reminders like the aftermath of Katrina, won't be. The authoritarian impulse behind much of the gun "control" efforts has been and will be in play.

The 2nd amendment was written by people familiar with the authoritarian agenda underneath legal disarmament. That familiarity is why it was written into the Constitution in the first place.

Asguard
01-02-13, 03:06 AM
In truth, Asguard, I think you're overlooking something about the American culture. For better or worse, we are infused with an anti-establishment behavior. While I accept the anti-government role of the Second Amendment, I also think of it as a secondary issue. To the other, the gun advocates see it as a primary issue. I would suggest, in such an examination, to look at it not so much as anti-enemy, but anti-something or -anything.

I've known revolutionaries who are the same way. They might get what they want—something rare, indeed—but they still demand it. The underlying neurotic conflict is the establishment giving what one wants versus the idea of the establisment in the first place. What should be a secondary goal—such as resistance against the state—becomes a primary goal. In this case, the would-be revolutionaries become part of the problem.

As we've seen in recent years, the idea of having a gun to protect against the government in the U.S. is to wave one's gun in order to protest the governing of America.

This is a neurosis that people will outgrow much sooner than their phallocentric surrogate of guns, guns, guns. That is, they'll eventually find a different target. (Watch the social conservatvies on that one; either the bestials or the incetuous are up next, since they're losing their fight agaisnt the gay.)

That is to say, people will look for something to shoot long after they've gotten over their need to kill a black man or a government agent in the name of Crispus Attucks.

Thus, your point, while well taken, is a bit overstated.

Overstated?
Possibly however the anti governmental paranoia that seems to be present in most Americans in Australia would be considered indicative of a mental illness. Not joking about that, "do you think the FBI is out to get you?" was a question given to me in a mental health assessment to which I responded "firstly the FBI only works in the US and no" yet it seems most of the right of the US would answer that YES (indicative of a schizophrenic type disorder)

Bells
01-02-13, 11:12 AM
We have experience with an American disarmed citizenry, under armed (and locally armed) government: Black people in the South from 1867 until 1967, Reds on various reservations from the early 1800s until the late 1970s, Japanese people in the 1940s, etc. These are not experiences one would wish to multiply.

That is an interesting point.

However, none of the examples you have given was rectified by arming the citizenry that were being oppressed.

pjdude1219
01-02-13, 12:38 PM
All three of those examples were of legal American citizens who were both disarmed and abused by various levels of government.

The apparent lesson of such events was not lost on the more fortunate races and demographic groups who were their neighbors - and with reminders like the aftermath of Katrina, won't be. The authoritarian impulse behind much of the gun "control" efforts has been and will be in play.

The 2nd amendment was written by people familiar with the authoritarian agenda underneath legal disarmament. That familiarity is why it was written into the Constitution in the first place.

apartently the lessons of the cold war were lost on you. a constant uprising in power levels is never a good thing. someone always blinks. arming people wouldn't have made those things better. all it would have done is increase the body count.

iceaura
01-02-13, 06:37 PM
However, none of the examples you have given was rectified by arming the citizenry that were being oppressed. Prevention is desired, not remedy. Don't get into that situation, is the lesson - not arm oneself to get out of it.

But also, the point is not completely clear: the debate over whether Martin Luther King's nonviolent approach would have worked as well without the famously well-armed Black Panthers looming in the wings is not settled. More than one analyst has mentioned, also, the influence of returning black military vets, with the implicit threat of their military training and weapons possession, as changing the general atmosphere of small towns in the South. The Reds, as well, made more political progress after the rise of an armed and dangerous militia on various reservations - coincidence? And even the much different Japanese cause, especially their return to ordinary life, was helped to some significant degree by the service of Japanese origin citizens in the US military - the arming of their young men was new to that class of that culture in the US, and changed their image, had an influence on their neighbors.

There is also the cultural memory, still a profound undercurrent, of the generations of abuse suffered by the Scotch Irish at the behest of the Crown, and meted out by the Scotch Irish at the behest of the Crown, in which disarmament was the basic step in oppression - the innovations in weaponry, the importance laid on having and carrying weapons, was fundamental to their self-liberation in the Revolutionary War. These are the people who founded the US, culturally and politically, and they had generations of collective memory informing them of the absolute necessity of being armed if you wished to remain free.

A couple of hundred years later, we live in country laid out at the bottom by them - we live in counties, we have sheriffs, we couple up as teenagers and marry for love, our drug is alcohol, we don't like to be crowded, - - and we carry guns.

Bowser
01-06-13, 05:49 PM
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If someone is determined, they will find a way.

billvon
01-06-13, 06:00 PM
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If someone is determined, they will find a way.

Yes, they will. But it is much, much harder to kill dozens of people with a spoon (or a rope, or a club) than with a gun. That's why guns are not treated the same as spoons or ropes, nor should they be.

kwhilborn
01-06-13, 08:58 PM
Yes! I agree 100% with billvon. I'd rather someone attack me with a spoon than a gun. A spoon cannot kill 20 people in less than a minute, but a semi-automatic can with time to spare,

R1D2
01-06-13, 10:03 PM
Yes, they will. But it is much, much harder to kill dozens of people with a spoon (or a rope, or a club) than with a gun. That's why guns are not treated the same as spoons or ropes, nor should they be.
No but I can with my truck. And some rope and ingenuity.
And look at the "traps" used on troops in Vietnam. Shots didn't need fired. And many died and were wounded with just bamboo and rope. Holes and prior planning. 9/11 some men with box cutters killed way more than 300 people without shots fired I think.
Look at earlier times men killed many with lies, swords, blades, poison, and carelessness. Than what some guns have killed in the past year (imo) study the roman games. No shots except maybe a cross bow bolt. And how many died?
_______

Yes! I agree 100% with billvon. I'd rather someone attack me with a spoon than a gun. A spoon cannot kill 20 people in less than a minute, but a semi-automatic can with time to spare,

You kwh want attacked with a spoon over a semi auto "gun". A pistol. Has a better chance. Or. Higher cal rifle with 4 round clips, not to likely for 20 kills in less than a minute.. Maybe a 22 cal with a 10 round lil' clip? 22 cal weapons would likely what you would want kept away. So the spoon you wish attacked by do you want it made of metal or plastic? Guns are not the "gut issue" its the human element. And its our culture of games that kill, the music that mentions death. Death of humans by humans is everywhere in society. You don't have to look far. Or wide. It started with jacks. Now Think of Attari, and nintendo. They had game hunts and point collections. Not too bad. Then Sega. Mortal Kombat. Does that ring a bell?, If you ever played that you will see how violent it is. Heads being ripped off and things. Now there is grand theft auto, you beat up people, take cars, you run from the law. You shoot at people, then the violent movies. Our culture needs changed. And we people all need a gut check and not blame a weapon that don't go off without a human making it work.

GeoffP
01-07-13, 08:40 AM
apartently the lessons of the cold war were lost on you. a constant uprising in power levels is never a good thing. someone always blinks. arming people wouldn't have made those things better. all it would have done is increase the body count.

That is not a reasoned contrast.

Also, the reference to 'blinks' refers to the point at which the other side blinks in a staredown, backing down. That means that you win. You're probably thinking of 'twitch'.

Lastly, although I found armament - and nuclear armament in particular - reprehensible, the lessons of the Cold War seem to actually have been lost on you. Neither side, though well-armed, 'twitched' and fired. This would almost be a better case for Mutually Assured Destruction.

And, finally: the value of arming and fighting back must at all times be evaluated relative to the cost of not doing so. As such, increasing (not uprising) power is not necessarily a bad thing. Its worth is always a ratio. For example: the Copts have a great deal of moral, social and political justification for rising up and fighting back against their religious fucktard oppressors. But in doing so, they would almost certainly be massacred in retaliation by the superior forces of those same oppressors. You seem to follow this principle at different times: I don't think you object to Hamas' arming itself and fighting against Israel. Nor do I believe for a moment you would object to a military outcome in the ME, so long as it ended in your favour. So I don't buy this line of 'reasoning'.

Bowser
01-07-13, 06:52 PM
Yes, they will. But it is much, much harder to kill dozens of people with a spoon (or a rope, or a club) than with a gun. That's why guns are not treated the same as spoons or ropes, nor should they be.

People who use guns to kill have no imagination. Nonetheless, I think these mass shootings are a symptom of something much larger. It's unfortunate that the culprits often choose to die with their victims; otherwise, we might have a better understanding of the motivations behind the acts.

billvon
01-07-13, 06:58 PM
No but I can with my truck. And some rope and ingenuity.

Yes, you could. In general, people don't - because guns are much better tools to kill people with than trucks. That's what they are designed for, and that's why mass murderers use guns instead of trucks (or pieces of rope.)


You kwh want attacked with a spoon over a semi auto "gun".

So would you.

Honest question. If your kid were in a local school, and a guy suddenly lost his mind there, would you prefer he had a semiauto handgun or a spoon?


And we people all need a gut check and not blame a weapon that don't go off without a human making it work.

A gun does not cause murder; it just makes mass murder very, very easy. Which is why it is not the same as a spoon (or a rope, or a truck.)

kwhilborn
01-07-13, 07:58 PM
We are living in a world with enough people that some are bound to go crazy. The ones who do go crazy should not have easy access to military grade weapons. A ten year old could mow down a classroom full of students with a semi-automatic rifle. The same insane kid could only kill 1 person if he had to manually reload his gun every time.

There were no mass shootings in the age of muskets. Here's a visual as some here seem pretty thick.

Until there is some foolproof way to rid the world of insanity then "Bullets don't kill people, People do" is beside the point. The only alternative is to keep military hardware away from everyone or accept constant mass killings as "acceptable loss". Maybe it won''t hit home until it happens to you. Americans.. Eeesh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-a5_oESRw

Fraggle Rocker
01-07-13, 09:58 PM
Don't bother countering my post. I won't respond to any questions.Hmm. What part of the name "discussion forum" do you find difficult to understand? Oh never mind, that's a question, isn't it.


Let me put this out there: would a ban on semi-automatic weapons not end any hope for a revolution? Not saying we need one, but we might in the future.A revolution??? Have you not been reading your memos? The next wars will be fought in cyberspace, and that includes the next revolution.


Guess you haven't been to Montreal in the last couple of decades. Hells Angels and friends have been blowing each other away for quite some time there.You've got Hell's Angels in Montreal??? I rode a motorcycle across eastern Canada, including Montreal, in 1974 and it is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever done! It took a week to thaw out.


The American Revolutionary War was a shambles, and a failure of conscience. We accept you back with open arms.Without the United States of America, who will save your Limey asses the next time the Germans start kicking them? Insult us all you want, but until the sun burns out, Americans will always be ready to die to protect Dear Mother England. Some day you'll bring your grandchildren over here to show them the signs in miles and acres and pounds and gallons and degrees Fahrenheit. With a tear in your eye you'll say, "Bless these Yanks for preserving our culture." :)


The Reds, as well, made more political progress after the rise of an armed and dangerous militia on various reservations - coincidence?Who started using the word "Reds" to mean Indians??? The Reds were the goddamned Communists! Call them "Native Americans" if you will, but don't insult them by equating them with Stalin and Khrushchev.


People who use guns to kill have no imagination.If I were ever so angry that I considered killing someone, I would want to vent that anger and burn off some adrenaline by killing him with my bare hands and perhaps some heavy objects. But considering that the roommate who shot my cat and the "best friend" who ran off with my first wife are still alive, the rest of you are probably safe. ;)

iceaura
01-11-13, 12:30 AM
Who started using the word "Reds" to mean Indians??? Lost in history, afaik.
The Reds were the goddamned Communists! Call them "Native Americans" if you will, but don't insult them by equating them with Stalin and Khrushchev. Calling the reds who live around me "native" anything is not recommended - unless you intend the offense.

And they are not insulted by the more or less accidental homonym - they have dibs on it, for one thing ("redskin" predates Marx by centuries, "red" being the inoffensively neutral term to go with "black" and "yellow" and "brown"), and communism is not despised by tribal folk in general. It's a fair term for their heritage economic arrangements, actually.

The reds in the US, like the blacks and browns and even the yellows, can speak to the consequences of being disarmed by a government, and thereby made vulnerable to the local thugs and terrorists.

kx000
01-11-13, 01:07 AM
People who use guns to kill have no imagination. Nonetheless, I think these mass shootings are a symptom of something much larger. It's unfortunate that the culprits often choose to die with their victims; otherwise, we might have a better understanding of the motivations behind the acts.

People are slaughter, some of them. Psychology man, same reason stars burn out. I feel as if some burn hotter until we clean our face. Some people get the yank. Simple as that. Telepathy, are you afraid? Do you think shooters are demons?

Want to see 10,000 schitzoids shoot at once?

Canines do it :)

Do good by it and success is certain! Motivation, do it lol. Uh be free. I'm guided so I fear not. Do you see synchronicity of the mind to line up shooters with minded victims of nature?

I would kill as a saint, good imagination. The bad ones lie cheat and steal to it.

Tiassa
01-11-13, 01:39 AM
Why Gun Owners Get So Little Sympathy From Others

Imagine, if you would, please, that there is a company somewhere in the United States that trains people in weapons use and tactics.

Now imagine that the CEO of that company inaccurately claims that Vice President Biden threatened that President Obama would use "executive privilege" and "executive orders" to ban assault rifles.

And now imagine that the CEO threatens to "start killing people" if the President of the United States uses his executive authority to take the gun violence discussion "one inch further".

Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine. David Edwards (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/) explains, for The Raw Story:


The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month ....

.... “Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

“I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I'm not fucking putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people.”

This is why the gun culture is viewed with such ... ahem ... skepticism by others: Yeah, yeah, we hear y'all 'bout your rights an' all, but y'all seem so damn anxious to start killing people.

These are people looking for a reason to shoot someone. And they have one of the most powerful political lobbies in the world looking out for them.

Maybe it's time for those mythical "responsible gun owners" to make themselves heard, and tell their bloodlusting fellows in the gun culture to stop running around pretending to be terrorists.

At least, we should hope they're just pretending.

I mean, it's kind of funny to hear Wayne LaPierre sniveling about video games, or a federal database of the mentally ill. What, after all, do these morons think they're accomplishing by glorifying guns and bloodshed?

Must be the video games. It can't possibly be the political leaders calling for "Second Amendment solutions" if the vote doesn't go their way. It can't possibly be business leaders telling people he's going to start killing if he doesn't get his way.

James Yeager made an appeal to "patriots". He's not a patriot. He's a wannabe terrorist.

And, yes, threatening mortal violence in order to influence political processes is terrorism, even if you're a white American from Tennessee.
____________________

Notes:

Edwards, David. "Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to 'start killing people' over Obama's gun control". The Raw Story. January 10, 2013. RawStory.com. January 10, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/

Asguard
01-11-13, 01:54 AM
Why Gun Owners Get So Little Sympathy From Others

Imagine, if you would, please, that there is a company somewhere in the United States that trains people in weapons use and tactics.

Now imagine that the CEO of that company inaccurately claims that Vice President Biden threatened that President Obama would use "executive privilege" and "executive orders" to ban assault rifles.

And now imagine that the CEO threatens to "start killing people" if the President of the United States uses his executive authority to take the gun violence discussion "one inch further".

Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine. David Edwards (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/) explains, for The Raw Story:


The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month ....

.... “Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

“I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I'm not fucking putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people.”

This is why the gun culture is viewed with such ... ahem ... skepticism by others: Yeah, yeah, we hear y'all 'bout your rights an' all, but y'all seem so damn anxious to start killing people.

These are people looking for a reason to shoot someone. And they have one of the most powerful political lobbies in the world looking out for them.

Maybe it's time for those mythical "responsible gun owners" to make themselves heard, and tell their bloodlusting fellows in the gun culture to stop running around pretending to be terrorists.

At least, we should hope they're just pretending.

I mean, it's kind of funny to hear Wayne LaPierre sniveling about video games, or a federal database of the mentally ill. What, after all, do these morons think they're accomplishing by glorifying guns and bloodshed?

Must be the video games. It can't possibly be the political leaders calling for "Second Amendment solutions" if the vote doesn't go their way. It can't possibly be business leaders telling people he's going to start killing if he doesn't get his way.

James Yeager made an appeal to "patriots". He's not a patriot. He's a wannabe terrorist.

And, yes, threatening mortal violence in order to influence political processes is terrorism, even if you're a white American from Tennessee.
____________________

Notes:

Edwards, David. "Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to 'start killing people' over Obama's gun control". The Raw Story. January 10, 2013. RawStory.com. January 10, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/


isn't it sad how these nuts argue that the right to medical privacy (constitutional right garentied by Roe V Wade) and the right to life which underpins the consitution as a fundermental principle are less important than the right to amass more guns than the US army

GeoffP
01-11-13, 07:40 AM
One could make a similar comment about right-to-abortion, and it's corresponding industry.

Oh yes, I said it. Deal.

ElectricFetus
01-11-13, 09:38 AM
One could make a similar comment about right-to-abortion, and it's corresponding industry.

Oh yes, I said it. Deal.

No I don't think one can. The pro-choice lobby is much smaller then the gun lobby, makes far less money and I find it hard to believe you can quote them saying they will abort more fetuses if any regulations are put on them.

GeoffP
01-11-13, 02:06 PM
Heh. Thought we'd clash on this one. =)

No, it's not a perfect parallel, but there seems to me to be the same kind of visceral reaction to the suggestion of more controls on abortion despite the fact that abortion takes more lives than guns each year. (Hell, tobacco takes probably an order of magnitude more lives each year and is completely without even the legal morality of the 2nd Amendment.)

Abortion advocates aren't threatening more abortions that I know of, but death - real death, not the threat thereof - is implicit in their mandate. Like the gun lobby, they assert their rights shrilly and viscerally as a reaction to intrusion into their belief space. It just strikes me as kind of hypocritical. How many deaths result from legally-owned guns vs. illegal ones vs. the other horrible ways that death is inflicted on us by the merchant class? Not too many, I'd bet, although the incidents themselves are probably much horrible, individually.

(I know the whole comparison seems a little OT, but is the pro-choice lobby really smaller than the gun lobby? NOW, PP, etc? http://www.ask.com/wiki/Category:Pro-choice_organizations_in_the_United_States They certainly do make a lot less money, of course; a couple orders of magnitude, I'm sure.)

ElectricFetus
01-11-13, 03:47 PM
Its arguable if a fetus is a "life", smoking kills the user by user's own choice and awareness, shooting other people dead is where morality line is firmly placed. I'm not sure what regulations on abortion your speaking of, I'm not a advocate so I don't hear their shrill visceral reactions, but for guns when ever there is a shooting there is talk of gun control and the gun nuts go crazy in response.

GeoffP
01-11-13, 06:10 PM
What I'd like to see is a rational evaluation of the numbers. Who, how many, when, what ratios. I think Biden has some more comprehensive plan but I haven't read it.

Tiassa
01-21-13, 01:36 AM
National Gun Appreciation Day

It's worth noting that we have an unofficial "National Gun Appreciation Day" in the U.S. Indeed, Saturday was the first of what is intended to be an annual event. As you might imagine, it went off with a bang:


Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio left five people injured Saturday, the same day that thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter firearm limits.

At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

The shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer, Long said. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said that it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged but that it appeared to be an accident.

(Associated Press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html))

Couldn't see that one coming, could you?


In Indianapolis, police said a 54-year-old man was injured when he inadvertently shot himself while leaving a gun show.

Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45-caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds, state police said. Loaded personal weapons aren't allowed inside the show.

Cozee, of Indianapolis, was hospitalized for treatment. Police say the shooting was accidental and no charges will be filed.

I take it you're not surprised.


And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought Saturday when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

Police Chief Pat Berarducci said it appears the bullet ricocheted off the floor and struck the friend in the arm and leg. The man was taken by helicopter to a hospital 30 miles north in Cleveland, Berarducci said. His condition wasn't immediately known.

Sounds like a great party, eh?

Remind me to stay the hell away from anyplace a large number of alleged responsible gun owners are getting together. Oh, wait, you won't need to remind me; some things I can actually figure out for myself.

Meanwhile, in Albuquerque:


A 15-year-old boy remained in custody Sunday night as detectives tried to piece together what led to the shooting of his parents and three of their children who were found dead in a New Mexico home.

The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings, which happened Saturday night at the home in a rural area southwest of downtown Albuquerque, said Lt. Sid Covington, a Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman.

Authorities identified the victims late Sunday as Greg Griego, 51, his wife Sara Griego, 40, and three of their children: a 9-year-old boy, Zephania Griego, and daughters Jael Griego, 5, and Angelina Griego, 2.

(Montoya Bryan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20/albuquerque-shooting-2013-new-mexico-teenager_n_2516424.html))

And in Las Vegas:


One or more gunmen opened fire on a crowded soccer field in the northern part of the Las Vegas Valley late Saturday morning, hitting a pair of women - one in the leg and the other across the chest. Neither wound was considered life-threatening.

The shooting, which police called a random act, led to the evacuation of the Teton Trails Park at Bradley Road and Wispering Sands Drive.

"There's nothing that seems to suggest that the women were actually targeted because neither was standing anywhere near the other," said officer Marcus Martin, a public information officer for the Metropolitan Police Department. "It was just some moron with a gun."

(Ragan (http://www.lvrj.com/news/two-women-wounded-in-las-vegas-soccer-field-shooting-187605991.html))

All in all, I'd say the first annual National Gun Appreciation Day was a resounding success. So let's celebrate with this revue of responsible gun owners in America:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk

Okay, they're not all responsible gun owners, but ... well, you know.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Gun Show Shootings: At Least 5 Hurt In Accidental Incidents In Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina". The Huffington Post. January 19, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. January 20, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html

Montoya Bryan, Susan. "Albuquerque Shooting: Teenager Kills 5 People, Including 3 Children". The Huffington Post. January 20, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. January 20, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20/albuquerque-shooting-2013-new-mexico-teenager_n_2516424.html

Ragan, Tom. "Two women wounded in Las Vegas soccer field shooting". Las Vegas Review-Journal. January 19, 2013. LVRJ.com. January 20, 2013. http://www.lvrj.com/news/two-women-wounded-in-las-vegas-soccer-field-shooting-187605991.html

See Also:

Noble, Oliver. "Gun FAILS: Second Amendment Rights Gone Wrong In Honor Of 'Gun Appreciation Day'". The Huffington Post. January 17, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. January 20, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html

R1D2
01-21-13, 07:50 AM
[B]This has got to be one of the most idiotic defenses I have ever heard. They must think Americans are Morons to buy into it, but apparently many do, so maybe it's an Intelligence/Inbreeding thing so popular in that country.[
/b] this is rude. We are not all inbred or morons...



The stupid "Guns don't kill people. People do." as a reason why military weapons should be allowed in the public's hands they are not. There are civilian weapons. And then there are military weapons. Military type hardwear needs a strict permit. Most folks have civilian weapons.

They load instantly, and are designed to kill people. That is their function. there function is that of the user. Like target shooting, hunting, self defense.

arauca
01-21-13, 09:05 AM
this is rude. We are not all inbred or morons...
they are not. There are civilian weapons. And then there are military weapons. Military type hardwear needs a strict permit. Most folks have civilian weapons.
there function is that of the user. Like target shooting, hunting, self defense.

Make accessible guns to angry brats and this is what they do. If the father would not have weapons he and the rest of the family would be alive today !!!!!!!

Here's what we know for sure: a family five were found dead in a house in a secluded area just outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico on Saturday night. The bodies included an adult male, and adult female, one juvenile male and two juvenile females . An unidentified 15-year-old was arrested and charged for killing all five people. Several weapons were found inside the house, including a military style assault rifle. Police officials wouldn't disclose any relation between the shooter and the family or any of the identities, either.


Locally, KOB 4 reports the father's name is Greg Griego, a local pastor who works with the fire department, and the shooter's name is Nehemiah Griego. A neighbour told the Associated Press he "has seen a married couple and their two boys and two girls from time to time." KOB also reports police believe the shooter primarily used an AR-15 rifle, the same weapon used by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado and Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.

ElectricFetus
01-21-13, 09:28 AM
Fact: in the last 11 years 67.25% of all homicides were committed with guns in the USA.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all

Tiassa
01-21-13, 11:28 AM
there function is that of the user. Like target shooting, hunting, self defense.

To the one, yes, as an abstract assertion. To the other, as a response to KWHilborn's point, no.

That is to say, we hear much from gun advocates about how cars, pencils, or hammers can be used to kill people, and while this is true, none of those things were created specifically for killing. My ten-inch kitchen knife is a deadly slashing and stabbing weapon if I choose to put it to that use, but unlike a SOG Pentagon, it's designed for kitchen use.

True, there are "target" rifles, but that classification includes AR-15s with a scope and laser sight.

Guns, unlike hammers, are designed to kill.

I believe it was Eric van Lustbader who once documented over one hundred fifty lethal objects in a hotel room, including notions like strangling someone with a phone cord. I guarantee that while I might be able to kill someone with a CAT-5 cable, it wasn't designed for that purpose. And if someone took that cable to an elementary school, how many children do you think he could kill before someone stopped him?

My solution to the American gun control debate is simple enough, but gun enthusiasts I've known and discussed it with over the years just won't put up with it:


• Every firearm is registered with the states according to a federal standard that provides baseline requirements.

• Every firearm owner must carry firearm liability insurance.

• Every firearm owner is legally and civilly responsible for the use of his or her weapons.

Correction: I've known two gun owners who would accept these terms. Both, incidentally, are political liberals. One got rid of his firearms when he concluded that he did not need them; he's a trained martial artist who hasn't hunted in over twenty years, and decided a firearm for defense was extraneous. The other loathes the NRA, owns three guns, and finds the majority of his fellow gun owners scary for their obsessive attitudes.

Still, though, firearm registration is generally regarded as an infringement on rights. Liability insurance is regarded as an infringement on rights. And legal and civil responsibility is, apparently, too much to ask insofar as there should be no accidental shootings.


We are not all inbred or morons...

While this is true of gun owners as well as Americans in general, what the public really needs from shooting enthusiasts is some evidence of a significant faction within the firearms community that not only disagrees the extreme rhetoric of the NRA and idiotic business leaders like James Yeager (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?132802-Some-facts-about-guns-in-the-US&p=3034309&viewfull=1#post3034309), but is willing to stand up and tell them they're wrong. While there are many firearm owners and enthusiasts who do find such rhetoric discouraging and even dangerous, the larger public still sees them as supporters, much like post-election debate among Republicans confirms that it wasn't really about Todd Akin's or Richard Mourdock's loathsome words about women and rape, but, rather, that they didn't express themselves well enough. That is, there are some points that cannot be expressed well enough to not offend general decency.

billvon
01-21-13, 11:31 AM
there function is that of the user. Like target shooting, hunting, self defense.

"Self defense" involves killing people (or in many cases the threat of killing people, which is further demonstration that that's what they are designed to do.)

Guns are designed to kill. That's why terms like "stopping power" are used. They can be used for other things, like target shooting, but they are designed, first and foremost, to kill.

arauca
01-21-13, 12:01 PM
"Self defense" involves killing people (or in many cases the threat of killing people, which is further demonstration that that's what they are designed to do.)

Guns are designed to kill. That's why terms like "stopping power" are used. They can be used for other things, like target shooting, but they are designed, first and foremost, to kill.


I second you . The only purpose is to make a hole in a body rip the inside and let the body bleed to death.

iceaura
01-22-13, 01:44 AM
• Every firearm owner must carry firearm liability insurance. Like free speech insurance, or freedom of assembly insurance, or insurance against some bad thing their church might do, that's a nonstarter.

It would be even less justifiable than a poll tax - voting is not a specifically enumerated Constitutional right.

R1D2
01-22-13, 02:07 AM
I second you . The only purpose is to make a hole in a body rip the inside and let the body bleed to death.

I could buy rubber rounds for a 12 gauge shot gun, or fire a warning shot near the threatening individual.
On the other hand I could say tobacco. Is more deadly let's ban that.

More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.1,2
Smoking cigarettes, pipes, or cigars increases the risk of dying from cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, and oral cavity.3,4
Smokeless tobacco is a known cause of human cancer.5 In addition, the nicotine in smokeless tobacco may increase the risk for sudden death from a condition where the heart does not beat properly (ventricular arrhythmias) and, as a result, the heart pumps little or no blood to the body's organs.5

(Well I did say let's ban it. Those are my reasons)
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

Fraggle Rocker
01-22-13, 01:47 PM
Fact: in the last 11 years 67.25% of all homicides were committed with guns in the USA.In 2011, for the first time ever, more Americans were killed by guns than by cars. That makes guns one of the top ten causes of death! If that were any other country, we'd boycott it. Actually there are nine other countries with worse records:

1. El Salvador 2. Jamaica 3. Honduras 4. Guatemala 5. Swaziland 6. Mexico 7. Colombia 8. Brazil 9. Panama.
What an elite list to belong to!

We make a big stink about drunk driving, but guns kill more than twice as many people. (Slightly less than half of auto fatalities "involve" drinking, and not all of the crashes that "involve" drinking were actually caused by drinking.)

ElectricFetus
01-22-13, 02:16 PM
Well the homicide does not include manslaughter, but then again people rarely shot at another person by accident or without intent to kill.

Tiassa
01-22-13, 02:53 PM
NGAD: An Unofficial Tally

David Waldman (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/21/1180685/-Gun-Appreciation-Day-shootings), for Daily Kos:


This won't require a lot of explanation. I decided to count as many incidents as I could of firearms being discharged on "Gun Appreciation Day," and what happened as a result. After hearing the news of five woundings in separate accidental shootings at three different gun shows during the day, I got curious about how many other incidents, both intentional and unintentional, might have happened during the day.

I'm sure that my list is not comprehensive. All I did was search Google news. Still, I came up with a list of 92 separate incidents in 34 states and the District of Columbia, killing a total of 34 people and wounding 65 more ....

.... For the purposes of this list, I have defined gun "incidents" as those in which there was a discharge, intentional or otherwise. There is one exception on the list: an incident in Las Vegas, NV in which an elected state representative brandished a gun and threatened to shoot the Speaker-elect of the Nevada state legislature.

The list also includes a pitbull shot by police officers in Boston, and links to a story about Sanford, Florida, in which police responded to six shooting incidents on Saturday and early Sunday. Nobody was killed or injured in the Sanford spree.

To the other, Chicago saw five wounded in five separate shootings, and the horrific slaying in Albuquerque counts five dead in a single incident. Meanwhile, Arkansas saw four wounded in two separate incidents, and a town in Kentucky saw two ridiculous incidents in which a teenager accidentally shot a friend, and another man was allegedly shot by his brother for reasons not disclosed.

Waldman lists all ninety-two incidents he found, and, well, it's a pretty morbid sight.

I wonder what next year's National Gun Appreciation Day will bring.
____________________

Notes:

Waldman, David. "Gun Appreciation Day shootings". Daily Kos. January 21, 2013. DailyKos.com. January 22, 2013. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/21/1180685/-Gun-Appreciation-Day-shootings

iceaura
01-22-13, 08:40 PM
Well the homicide does not include manslaughter, but then again people rarely shot at another person by accident or without intent to kill. As a glance to Tiassa's list will show, that is not so. Guns set the stage for screwup and slapstick mishap as often as malevolence and lethal intent. They attract idiotic behavior at a level comparable to bonfires and dirt bikes.

I recall once seeing a list of events in which people had been shot by their dogs - presumably by accident - anyone recall seeing that around lately?


Fact: in the last 11 years 67.25% of all homicides were committed with guns in the USA.
In 2011, for the first time ever, more Americans were killed by guns than by cars. That makes guns one of the top ten causes of death! Once again, the wrongfoot argument.

Americans often do their violence by gun, which makes sense in a place with so many around - they're ready to hand. Other people - say in Russia, or Rwanda - choose other means. So?

We live in a country where almost no one dies of appendicitis, few die of pregnancy or rabies or malaria or the like, etc. Our roads are well lit and repaired, our cars padded and bagged and belted and controlled for speed. When we have all lost weight and quit smoking and jogged regularly and become so safe in general that specifically gun violence is the top cause of death, we'll be living to 120 and shooting ourselves.

R1D2
01-24-13, 09:35 AM
There have been talk about bolt action rifles. One was fired a while back. The bolt action killed a POTUS. And there still used. Look up Lee H. Oswald.
This quote I know of, I will add.




http://generationterrorists.com/quotes/full_metal_jacket.shtml
HARTMAN: Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was? None of you dumbasses knows? Private Cowboy?
COWBOY: Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir!

HARTMAN: That's affirmative. Charles Whitman killed twelve people from a twenty-eight-storey observation tower at the University of Texas from distances up to four hundred yards. Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? Private Snowball?

SNOWBALL: Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!

HARTMAN: That's right, and do you know how far away he was?

SNOWBALL: Sir, it was pretty far! From that book suppository building, sir!

HARTMAN: All right, knock it off! Two hundred and fifty feet! He was two hundred and fifty feet away and shooting at a moving target. Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot! Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot? Private Joker?

JOKER: Sir, in the Marines, sir!

HARTMAN: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will be able to do the same thing!

Tiassa
02-01-13, 09:33 PM
One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty

Jason Cherkis (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html) explains that number for The Huffington Post:


Through Google and Nexis searches, The Huffington Post has tracked gun-related homicides and accidents throughout the U.S. since the schoolhouse massacre in Newtown, Conn., on the morning of Dec. 14. There were more than 100 such deaths the first week after the school shooting. In the first seven weeks after Newtown, there have been more than 1,280 gunshot homicides and accidental deaths. Slate has counted 1,475 fatal shooting incidents since Newtown, including suicides and police-involved shooting deaths, which The Huffington Post did not include in its tally.

Freedom has a price, and this is one that many are prepared to pay—especially if other people pay the toll for them.
____________________

Notes:

Cherkis, Jason. "U.S. Gun Deaths Since Sandy Hook Top 1,280". The Huffington Post. February 1, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. February 1, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html

GeoffP
02-02-13, 03:52 PM
Tobacco's still worse. And if guns have no purpose but to kill, tobacco has less even than that, addicting you in the meantime. Tobacco also has the amusing benefit of killing you with lots of slow, painful suffering. If one of the two needs banning, I know which must go first.

Tiassa
02-02-13, 03:57 PM
If one of the two needs banning, I know which must go first.

I wouldn't disagree. But, at the same time, an outright ban of all firearms is not a serious consideration in the current public discourse, and I doubt it ever will be.

rodereve
02-02-13, 09:14 PM
Tobacco's still worse. And if guns have no purpose but to kill, tobacco has less even than that, addicting you in the meantime. Tobacco also has the amusing benefit of killing you with lots of slow, painful suffering. If one of the two needs banning, I know which must go first.

I think that type of argument sort of detracts from progress, and sort of the same language that bureaucrats and politicians speak to drag on the process. Well why are we focusing on burgulars when murderers are on the loose!? We have to fight each battle. I definitely agree with more regulation, but not banning.

wellwisher
02-03-13, 08:12 AM
The vast majority of death and injuries, by guns, is done with illegal guns; gang violence. Instead of using science standards to infer the correct course of action, what appears to be happening is legal guns are the only data presented by media, in an attempt to stack the data set. If a scientist needed to draw a curve of all shooting incidence, a good scientist would use legal and illegal gun data points; all the data. But politics is not rational or scientific. The democrats, for some reason, throw out the majority of the data points and use only legal gun data points. The curve then suggests this is the main problem, due to inference from the fixed data set. Liberals are not rational, so this works, with no liberal asking to see all the data. It reminds you of the global warming data scam.

If we did this scientifically, and used all the data points, the curve would say we can actually save more lives if we go after illegal guns. But since this is not where liberals want to go, one might infer liberals seem to side more with criminals and will stack the deck againt legal activity to support the criminals.

Why would liberalism prefer to stack the data against legal, instead of use all the data which sides against illegal? I prefer all the data and a path that maximizes lives with the least amount of resources; attack the main source first.

Say we could take away all legal guns. We can't or won't be able to stop illegal guns any better than illegal drugs, which generates billions of dollars of illegal sales. Now only criminals are allowed to possess guns; by default. How does this benefit liberalism? Is crime part of the liberal philosophy since decisions are not based on science or truth.

Tiassa
02-03-13, 11:54 AM
Why would liberalism prefer to stack the data against legal, instead of use all the data which sides against illegal?

Given the number of "legal" guns that become "illegal" guns, I'm not certain this is a problem facing "liberalism".

pjdude1219
02-03-13, 02:28 PM
The vast majority of death and injuries, by guns, is done with illegal guns; gang violence. Instead of using science standards to infer the correct course of action, what appears to be happening is legal guns are the only data presented by media, in an attempt to stack the data set. If a scientist needed to draw a curve of all shooting incidence, a good scientist would use legal and illegal gun data points; all the data.[/QUOTE] actually most guns used in crime are purchased legally and than illegally given to others.
But politics is not rational or scientific which probably explains why conservatives problems with it.
The democrats, for some reason, throw out the majority of the data points and use only legal gun data points. The curve then suggests this is the main problem, due to inference from the fixed data set. untrue.
Liberals are not rational, so this works, with no liberal asking to see all the data. It reminds you of the global warming data scam. actually liberals being more intellectual and scientific so they are the rational party but nice misrepresentation. and there was no global warming data scam. it was typical right wing lack of understanding of science.


If we did this scientifically, and used all the data points, the curve would say we can actually save more lives if we go after illegal guns. But since this is not where liberals want to go, one might infer liberals seem to side more with criminals and will stack the deck againt legal activity to support the criminals. more lies to attack the left. most guns used in crime are purchased legally.

billvon
02-03-13, 04:25 PM
The vast majority of death and injuries, by guns, is done with illegal guns; gang violence. Instead of using science standards to infer the correct course of action, what appears to be happening is legal guns are the only data presented by media, in an attempt to stack the data set.

Agreed. This is done primarily by conservatives; they attempt to use gun violence to push their agendas. The NRA, for example, has used recent shootings to push for more gun sales. This enriches the group they lobby for - the gun industry. No regard is given to actual science. Instead every data point is spun to try to present the case that the solution to the gun problems is more guns.

One of the reasons that conservatives are so in favor of guns is that they tend to use threats and violence to solve their problems. Recently several prominent republicans have threatened armed revolution if they don't get their way; one outspoken NRA supporter said he was "going to start killing people" if he did not like the results of the gun discussion. It is difficult (to say the least) to have a rational discussion with people if their response is "if you don't agree with me I'm going to start killing people."

This isn't surprising; conservatives are, on the whole, less educated and less intelligent than liberals. From Lazar Stankov, of Singapore’s National Institute of Education:

===============
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated … At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education … and performance on mathematics and reading assessments.
===============

When they cannot express themselves intelligently, they fall back on threats of violence. The better armed they are, the more credible the threat of violence. Thus conservatives have a real fear that if they don't have enough guns, no one will take them seriously.

The irony, of course, is that while they readily threaten armed revolution to achieve their political agendas, they also can't be bothered to get off their couches and vote. They tend to prefer threats over the democratic process. And while this might work in a street gang, it tends not to work in more advanced systems of government.

Stoniphi
02-04-13, 07:24 AM
I note that the discussion has digressed to 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives' again. :rolleyes: I find it most unfortunate that we cannot just be practical, moderate and common - sensible about the issue. :(

Last week, here in Detroit, 2 shootings caught our attention. The first: a 70 year old basketball coach escorts 2 of the Martin Luther King high school girls basketball team from the school to their cars in the parking lot after practice. 2 teen aged boys (1 an 11th grade student at that school) jump them in the parking lot, pull pistols and demand money. 1 grabs the gold chain around the coaches neck. The coach pulled a pistol and shot both boys. The 11th grader died at the scene, the other "suspect" is in critical condition at hospital. The coach is a police reserve officer (required to carry his weapon at all times) and has a license to carry the pistol.

Meanwhile, at a bus stop a distance away, a fellow waiting for a bus was approached by an armed man who demanded his valuables. Instead of his wallet he produced a firearm and killed the robber. He was also licensed to carry the weapon.

I see good points on both retaining second amendment rights AND restricting the type of weapons available to pretty much anyone along common sense lines. Single shot muzzle loaders were the most sophisticated firearms on the planet when the constitution was written, this needs to be taken into serious consideration in this discussion. We need to throw in some minimal barriers to criminals obtaining firearms as well - merely check anyone who wants to own a firearm, like we do with cars. It would be a good idea to keep real close tabs on sociopathic people with known violent tendencies even if that bordered on invasion of their privacy for the practical purpose of protecting society.

Captain Kremmen
02-04-13, 08:35 AM
@Stoniphi
Are you saying that those two deaths were a good use of guns?

Wouldn't it have been better to give the muggers money
and then tell the police. One of them was a child.

Captain Kremmen
02-05-13, 07:00 PM
Bizarrely, America's greatest crack shot, Chris Kyle, was shot dead at a shooting range a few days ago by a fellow Iraqi veteran.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21313208

Any thoughts on this?

GeoffP
02-06-13, 08:38 AM
I wouldn't disagree. But, at the same time, an outright ban of all firearms is not a serious consideration in the current public discourse, and I doubt it ever will be.

Probably not. But, foreigner as I am, the Second Amendment does make a crude practical sense. How much do you trust your government, really? In the US, crazy is only a vote away, and the whole country hangs on the knife edge.


I think that type of argument sort of detracts from progress, and sort of the same language that bureaucrats and politicians speak to drag on the process. Well why are we focusing on burgulars when murderers are on the loose!? We have to fight each battle. I definitely agree with more regulation, but not banning.

This is a good point: my argument was that guns don't necessarily serve 'no purpose'. I don't own any, but I'm undecided on the role they should have.

Asguard
02-06-13, 08:56 AM
Probably not. But, foreigner as I am, the Second Amendment does make a crude practical sense. How much do you trust your government, really? In the US, crazy is only a vote away, and the whole country hangs on the knife edge.


Maybe you can help me, I have been asking this same question of everyone I have ever herd put forward this argument.

Say your right and tomorrow Obama loses the plot and proclaims himself ruler for life and imprisons congress and the court justices. Cabinate and the military go along with it.


What chance do you think you have even if you are allowed to buy full auto M16s?
After all this is not another country, this is the Army, Navy and Airforces home ground, there is no elections to worry about flag draped coffins, he can just throw as much hardware and lives at you as needed.

You really think you would have a hope in hell?

Don't you think you would be far better to ensure this never happens? to strengthen the arms of government and ensure that the people are educated and vote in ways to make sure that democracy is always protected. Not by guns but by the people in services, the courts and those you elect. THAT is the first and only line of defence against a rouge government, not your peashooters next to a Raptor and Apache

elte
02-06-13, 09:09 AM
I guess other people, too, have seen accuracy problems with that quote about only a good guy with a gun being able to stop a bad guy with a gun. It's anybody with a gun, really. There are bad guys who stop bad guys with guns a lot, for example. And on another note, it's important to remember that bad guys and good guys are largely products of nature and nurture, arguably, there really aren't any good guys and bad guys.

Tiassa
02-06-13, 12:14 PM
Marketing Success

David Edwards (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/05/3-year-old-s-c-boy-killed-after-mistaking-pink-handgun-for-toy/) of RawStory explains, "Pink handguns and Hello Kitty assault rifles have been part of an effort to get firearms in the hands of women and younger groups in recent years."

It would seem this marketing ploy is successful:


A 3-year-old boy in Greenville, South Carolina was shot in the head and killed on Friday after he started playing with a pink handgun because he thought it was a toy.

Police responding to the shooting at Haywood Plantation Apartments said that Tmorej Smith was found with a gunshot wound to the head, according to The Associated Press.

Investigators determined that Tmorej and his 7-year-old sister had been playing with a pink handgun when the incident occurred.

Congratulations to the firearm manufacturer. Condolences to everyone else.
____________________

Notes:

Edwards, David. "3-year-old S.C. boy killed after mistaking pink handgun for toy". RawStory. February 5, 2013. RawStory.com. February 6, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/05/3-year-old-s-c-boy-killed-after-mistaking-pink-handgun-for-toy/

Michael
02-06-13, 04:12 PM
WIKI
In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 vehicular crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000. The 32,367 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949) - roughly 90 people a day. A little more than are shot.

WIKI
Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.

FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)
A total of 12,664 people died of gun-related violence in 2011. Approximately 71% are criminal on criminal and is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving black male juveniles or young black adult males.

Michael
02-06-13, 04:22 PM
What chance do you think you have even if you are allowed to buy full auto M16s?
After all this is not another country, this is the Army, Navy and Airforces home ground, there is no elections to worry about flag draped coffins, he can just throw as much hardware and lives at you as needed.
After 10 years, even after dropping MOAB, the US military is STILL fighting and STILL losing in Afghanistan. Likewise in Iraq. Likewise we lost in Vietnam. Likewise in Korea. Not to mention, most in the US military, if ordered to shoot Americans, wouldn't do it. Agencies like the TSA, the way they're trained (which is to say they aren't), yeah, they would.

Asguard
02-06-13, 05:18 PM
After 10 years, even after dropping MOAB, the US military is STILL fighting and STILL losing in Afghanistan. Likewise in Iraq. Likewise we lost in Vietnam. Likewise in Korea. Not to mention, most in the US military, if ordered to shoot Americans, wouldn't do it. Agencies like the TSA, the way they're trained (which is to say they aren't), yeah, they would.

Oh so you think that Pakistan's intelligence are going to support the US resistance and allow them to flee over the boarder mountains?

Or is it China?

Michael
02-06-13, 06:12 PM
Americans fighting against their own government, certainly wouldn't need Pakistan or China to help The 'Resistance'. Also, the US military isn't some all powerful god-like entity for one. Where is the food going to come from? Magic? Where is the fresh water going to come from? Magic? Where is the fuel coming from? Magic? etc.... ALL of these things are provided BY the Citizens to their Government. If a Revolution happened, people in the military would find themselves hungry in short order, thirsty in even shorter order. Just stop and think about this logically for a second. Think of all the people who work in companies supporting the military - just how many of them would quit? How many would sabotage everything from the water to the food to electrical grid? How about internet attacks? Etc..... Secondly, it's a totally ridiculous scenario! You'd have people in the military turning on their commanders and shooting them if they were told to drop heavy bombs on US civilians. Not to mention the total ineptitude of the US military leaders.

It would never happen. Such a discussion should be opened up in SyFy or alternate history it's THAT ridiculous IMO.

You're much more likely to die in a traffic jam than be shot by a gun, 2/3 people who are killed by a gun are killing themselves, if they didn't have a gun, they'd jump from a bridge or down a mouth full of their SSRIs or their "Chronic Pain" pills - doesn't it make much more sense to talk about WHY people are committing suicide? Between 50-80% of all violence-related gun deaths are gang-bangers killing one another, mainly inner city young black men but also young white and Latina inner city youths. Isn't THAT something we should address? Most of this kids have no father at home, they are being raised by single mothers, or even their mothers have left them in the care of elderly grandparents. Some are shoveled into daycare at about 42 days old (and if they were born premature, then realistically 14 days past their planned delivery date). Many of these kids lack a father role model - which has been found to be one of the leading indicators childhood dysfunction.

HERE (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/206316.pdf)

Father absence has a strong and significant effect on both female and male levels of violence across the three types of violence examined. Changes over time in the level of father absence in a community significantly predict changes in female and male rates of violence, at least for homicide and robbery.



So, please go back to why guns should be banned or how The Resistance would do this or do that...... and for Gods sake, do not talk about any of the real underlying issues.

rodereve
02-07-13, 12:25 AM
The aim isn't to reduce firearms being carried by the average law-abiding American. The aim is to reduce firearms coming into the hands of criminals and those mentally incompetent to handle it. Would background checks prevent law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms? No, you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong. Would they help prevent them getting into the wrong hands, Yes.

As for slippery slope argument, we'll have that debate if it ever comes to it - I doubt it though. Regulations do not automatically turn into a ban. You have freedom of speech, but there are certain limitations put on it, like you can't say "I'm GOING TO kill you" and not have any repercussions. That is not an infringement of your right, its just a necessary regulation.

As for the idea that: you need guns in the hands of good people to stop the bad guys with guns -- this is just not the proper way to solve things. The police should be the primary force to deal with criminals. We don't need self-proclaimed vigilantes everywhere ready to shoot any perceived criminals in sight. They aren't trained like police and certainly may cause more harm than good. This will just polarize the triggerhappy mentality. People will start carrying a pistol for safety, and criminals will just bring more guns/men because of the rise in self-defensive shootings. Let me tell you this - criminals will always bring more firepower, because they are in the business of committing crimes and causing damage. If the general public would always have more gunpower than criminals, then they wouldn't be very successful criminals. If its going to be an arms race, then the criminals will win. Because that is their primary objective. the general public's primary worry is not to defend themselves at all times from a prospective burgular or mass murderer. and even then, who wants to live in a country where everyone has to carry around a gun to feel safe that they can defend from their neighbor also carrying a gun.

The main argument should NOT be "Oh, if a good person with a gun was there, that wouldn't have happened." The main argument should be "why was he/she ever issued that weapon in the first place." There are statistics that can back up either side of this argument. But ALL of the statistics involve a gun, and one person killing another human being. If regulations were in place, they won't affect if a good person will be there or not for a future altercation, but they WILL affect if a gun will be there or not.

asm-
02-07-13, 02:54 AM
The argument that people suffering from mental illnesses should not be allowed to have firearms is absurd, and demonstrates how little people in general understand these things. Especially in the united states, where people are pushed guns as a right.

In essence, when you are defending a right to own a gun with an argument like that, you are assuming that others (in this case, people with mental illnesses) will just stroll in and give up their rights happily at the next doctor's appointment. Of course they will, who wouldn't want to be treated as a second class citizen...considering people still view mental illness like it's the black death. If anything, that will be just one more procedure to make mental illness an even more shameful thing for anyone to admit. That's how you make those really desperate and tired people who will not care for anything.

Asguard
02-07-13, 05:09 AM
The argument that people suffering from mental illnesses should not be allowed to have firearms is absurd, and demonstrates how little people in general understand these things. Especially in the united states, where people are pushed guns as a right.

In essence, when you are defending a right to own a gun with an argument like that, you are assuming that others (in this case, people with mental illnesses) will just stroll in and give up their rights happily at the next doctor's appointment. Of course they will, who wouldn't want to be treated as a second class citizen...considering people still view mental illness like it's the black death. If anything, that will be just one more procedure to make mental illness an even more shameful thing for anyone to admit. That's how you make those really desperate and tired people who will not care for anything.

So you think its better to hand the means to commit suicide on a silver platter to them? maybe shrinks should be handing out shotguns at the first appointment right?

Suicide is MUCH more likely when the means of a quick death are readily to hand, people are more likely to use a gun than a knife or a rope (pills are a different matter). Furthermore the more violent the attempt the less likely that anyone can fix it, a cut wrist has a chance, pills certainly do, a head blown off with a shotgun?

All your idiocy will do is mean that shrinks will be much more likely to commit because if they know that there is easy access to a gun then rather than being able to treat in the community they will have anyone claiming suicidal idiations committed

R1D2
02-07-13, 09:32 AM
From a Newspaper in my "neck of the woods"...


suicide attempts committed with guns are fatal more than 90% of the time

Firearm use is the most common method of suicide among men-56.8%, as of 2007

In the U.S. 65 children and teens are shot with firearms and 8 die each day.

1/3rd of USA homes with kids younger than 18 have a firearm
More than 40% of gun owning households with kids. store guns unlocked and 25% with their guns loaded

And in Florida 1,195 children and teens were shot and were killed with a firearms between 1999 and 2007

asm-
02-07-13, 11:07 AM
So you think its better to hand the means to commit suicide on a silver platter to them? maybe shrinks should be handing out shotguns at the first appointment right?


No I don't. I guess that's what we are effectively doing, and the suggestion doesn't do a thing about it either way.

rodereve
02-07-13, 12:16 PM
The argument that people suffering from mental illnesses should not be allowed to have firearms is absurd, and demonstrates how little people in general understand these things. Especially in the united states, where people are pushed guns as a right.

In essence, when you are defending a right to own a gun with an argument like that, you are assuming that others (in this case, people with mental illnesses) will just stroll in and give up their rights happily at the next doctor's appointment. Of course they will, who wouldn't want to be treated as a second class citizen...considering people still view mental illness like it's the black death. If anything, that will be just one more procedure to make mental illness an even more shameful thing for anyone to admit. That's how you make those really desperate and tired people who will not care for anything.

Yes, let's treat everyone equally in terms of guns to avoid hurting their feelings or sense of worth. Hand little Johnny a 9mm because we don't want children thinking they're lesser than any adults. Lets give the guy with severe dementia a shotty, so when his brother comes in to pick him up for his doctor's appointment and he doesn't remember who he is and mistakes him for a burgular, he can defend himself. Don't forget ex-convicts, that group is really discriminated against in society, don't forget to give them their fair share of weaponry.

I'm just joking around with ad absurdum, but that is the type of reasoning if you bring your argument to its end. The idea is not equality, but equity.

asm-
02-07-13, 11:15 PM
Yes, let's treat everyone equally in terms of guns to avoid hurting their feelings or sense of worth. Hand little Johnny a 9mm because we don't want children thinking they're lesser than any adults. Lets give the guy with severe dementia a shotty, so when his brother comes in to pick him up for his doctor's appointment and he doesn't remember who he is and mistakes him for a burgular, he can defend himself. Don't forget ex-convicts, that group is really discriminated against in society, don't forget to give them their fair share of weaponry.

I'm just joking around with ad absurdum, but that is the type of reasoning if you bring your argument to its end. The idea is not equality, but equity.

No, actually you're just still not getting it and it shows. Who on earth would want to be diagnosed and "declared" mentally incompetent if it means you are revoked rights because of it? If anything, that won't keep people from obtaining firearms, it will keep people away obtaining treatment. An overwhelming majority of severely depressed people as an example, are diagnosed. Mainly because it's still a pretty stigmatizing thing. I'm sure the idea of declaring people unfit for rights will change that, and people will stroll into mental health facilities en masse, to declare themselves incompetent.

That's not supporting anyone's right to carry firearms either, it's just stating that the original argument is pretty dumb,ineffective, and dead before it was even conceived.

Unless of course, one plans for a mandatory evaluation before any permit is given. Good luck with that one.
I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone that actually supports this little mental health catchphrase, that what actually constitutes a serious enough mental health issue that your firearm rights should be revoked? Mild depression?

asm-
02-07-13, 11:18 PM
An overwhelming majority of severely depressed people as an example, are diagnosed.

Sorry, I meant "aren't diagnosed". I can't find the edit button.

rodereve
02-08-13, 12:15 PM
Yes, because people who have severe dementia would rather be able to carry a gun than go out to seek the proper treatment. It is obvious that being mentally ill makes you different from the normal population, when has that ever NOT been the case. The issue is not to sugarcoat it and act like they are normal in every regard (including equal access to firearms), but to address the problem head on, understand that it does affect their ability in many areas (whether or not they are fit to carry firearms) and then either to improve their current state or cope with their disorder in a proper manner.

Yes, mental illness is stigmatized in America. But you share the same mentality that is avoiding the issue and making it taboo. The idea is not to say "Hey, you're just as normal as us", but "Hey, you're suffering from mental illness, but you'll get better from it." One of the reasons why so many people go through depression but are undiagnosed, is because they think it is a normal phase of life. That everyone goes through it one time or another, and it is just an unspoken thing that you should suffer alone. This mindset is supported by your reasoning since you don't want to alarm them or make them feel bad for having it. If someone found out they had cancer, they would run to the hospital and try to seek treatment as soon as possible. Because it is something you need to seek help for. Although sometimes not to that extent, mental illnesses such as depression must be taken seriously, and not be taken lightly.

Like I said, not equality, but equity. Rights are not on equal terms to everyone already, just like we don't give children the right to bear arms, people must be fit to claim their right. You may think this is an infringement upon people's rights, but bring your argument to its end, and you'll see how absurd it is.

Stoniphi
02-09-13, 09:14 AM
@Stoniphi
Are you saying that those two deaths were a good use of guns?

Wouldn't it have been better to give the muggers money
and then tell the police. One of them was a child.

Are you saying that it would have been somehow better for the 70 year old coach/cop, the 2 female children that were with him and the guy waiting for the bus to be killed? :confused: Would it somehow be preferable that the violent criminals survived to repeat their crimes on other victims? Is a criminal's life that much more valuable than that of a responsible tax - paying upstanding citizen? Do you not think that someone pointing a gun at your head may just pull the trigger and kill you? Would that be OK with you? If you were the coach/cop and had taken on the responsibility for those 2 young ladies safety would you just have let that (and your oath of office) slide when you saw the guns? Or is it that you just don't take this kind of thing seriously?

Both of the boys/men that confronted the coach were children (chronologically, as far as not having reached the 'age of majority' here in the US). However, when you choose to procure a firearm with the intent to use it to threaten the life of another person in order to commit armed robbery (a felony crime that carries a good chance of a life sentence when you get caught) you are consciously taking the chance that your potential victim will also have a firearm and will use it to kill you when you inform him of your intent to kill him/her with your firearm. Our US courts are of the opinion that those who commit "adult" crimes will be treated as "adults". That includes the 11 year old "child" (at the time of the crime) currently serving life in prison for shooting a man in the head with a rifle from a hill overlooking the party store in Pontiac, Michigan where his victim had stopped to buy a bottle of pop. He did not know the man he killed, he killed him "just because he felt like it." That's OK with you? We should have let that go? Hows about if that dead man was your brother, father, son...or YOU?

Many violent crimes that occur here in Detroit are committed by persons who have not yet achieved the age of 18 years. The term "drive - by shooting" was coined here to describe the actions of teenaged ("children") street gangs armed with AK 47's. Guns and gun violence are very common here, as are beatings, stabbings, rapes, firebombings and involuntary immolations. (that is when you pour gasoline on someone, light them on fire to watch them burn to death) I understand that that each of the criminals that commit these crimes have their own deeply personal reasons for becoming a criminal. I understand that they may become upstanding citizens if somebody forced them into some as-yet-unknown program. The time for that is BEFORE they stick a gun in my face and threaten to kill me. At that moment they have forfeited ALL of their rights, including their right to life, period. The US constitution states that "life" as the first and primary "right" we US citizens are "entitled" to enjoy. It also states that the right to self defense is primary as if you kill me I don't get any of my other constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I do not endorse allowing children access to firearms. I do not endorse children committing violent crimes. It is the right of any person to defend themselves and their family, however. Bottom line is this: if you choose to brandish a firearm against your victim while you are committing a violent crime you have forfeited all of your rights, including your right to life by so doing. It doesn't matter how old you are when you choose to commit that violent crime, the fact is that you have done that and by so doing you incur consequences that can potentially end your life. Youth, like ignorance, is no excuse.

R1D2
02-09-13, 09:38 AM
Mr S,
I see a point in what you said.
If someone is armed with intent to kill a human life if it comes to it. Then they should be prepared to be killed by a human. No matter the age.
Did I take that right.
And cops have defended the citizens and taken lives no matter the age. Same with troops.
@ capt K. Would you rather see kids kill kids and adults kill adults? What really defines a "kid"? In some areas a kid becomes a adult around puberty. Here in the US its at 18. But some do what needs to be done. No matter the cost or age, the cop did it. Could you under the circumstances?

asm-
02-12-13, 03:20 AM
Yes, because people who have severe dementia would rather be able to carry a gun than go out to seek the proper treatment. It is obvious that being mentally ill makes you different from the normal population, when has that ever NOT been the case. The issue is not to sugarcoat it and act like they are normal in every regard (including equal access to firearms), but to address the problem head on, understand that it does affect their ability in many areas (whether or not they are fit to carry firearms) and then either to improve their current state or cope with their disorder in a proper manner. Well I hate repeating myself (especially for people who don't seem to understand or can't read), but I'll just mention one last time it's not an argument for equal gun rights, but an argument that mental health records don't really amount to anything.




Yes, mental illness is stigmatized in America. But you share the same mentality that is avoiding the issue and making it taboo. The idea is not to say "Hey, you're just as normal as us", but "Hey, you're suffering from mental illness, but you'll get better from it." One of the reasons why so many people go through depression but are undiagnosed, is because they think it is a normal phase of life. That everyone goes through it one time or another, and it is just an unspoken thing that you should suffer alone. This mindset is supported by your reasoning since you don't want to alarm them or make them feel bad for having it. If someone found out they had cancer, they would run to the hospital and try to seek treatment as soon as possible. Because it is something you need to seek help for. Although sometimes not to that extent, mental illnesses such as depression must be taken seriously, and not be taken lightly.
If someone had cancer, they'd seek help immediately because there's little shame in getting cancer. No social repercussions really, except the limitations and the anxieties you'd get from cancer. Sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about, at all. Depression has been absolutely diagnosed more in recent years because there's less stigma in it. Here you are talking about how other people keep the stigma alive, while you post this garbage. I mean you just went on quote saying mentally ill people aren't normal, pretty much.



Like I said, not equality, but equity. Rights are not on equal terms to everyone already, just like we don't give children the right to bear arms, people must be fit to claim their right. You may think this is an infringement upon people's rights, but bring your argument to its end, and you'll see how absurd it is.
I'll just quote this to tell you for the Nth time that you should learn how to read.

rodereve
02-12-13, 10:28 PM
If someone had cancer, they'd seek help immediately because there's little shame in getting cancer. No social repercussions really, except the limitations and the anxieties you'd get from cancer. Sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about, at all. Depression has been absolutely diagnosed more in recent years because there's less stigma in it. Here you are talking about how other people keep the stigma alive, while you post this garbage. I mean you just went on quote saying mentally ill people aren't normal, pretty much.


Actually, it sounds like you really don't know what YOU yourself are talking about. First you say that depression is very much left undiagnosed (and I quote you said "an overwhelming majority") because it is still stigmatized in America. Then you're saying it isn't. So you're not arguing against me, you're arguing against yourself. Would you like me to quote you on that?


An overwhelming majority of severely depressed people as an example, aren't diagnosed. Mainly because it's still a pretty stigmatizing thing.

Depression has been absolutely diagnosed more in recent years because there's less stigma in it.

I think you have a problem with understanding my points, because you don't have a basic understanding of the words we're talking about, particularly understanding what stigmatization is. To stigmatize is to characterize as disgraceful. I said mental illness isn't normal, because by definition, that is what illness is, a deviation from normal condition of mind or body. But I never said that it should be disgraceful, I said these are groups that need encouragement to first accept their illness (not stay in denial), and then try to improve on it.

Yes, I never expected much intelligent rebuttal from you, but your response is more of a rebuttal to your initial points than it is to mine.

Bowser
02-15-13, 11:10 PM
I don't own a gun, but I think people have a right to own them should they choose. Background checks don't bother me; however, where do we draw a line beyond a criminal history? Where do they draw a line now?

spidergoat
02-15-13, 11:14 PM
I'm not into guns, either, but I have a friend who is one of these Alex Jones acolytes. What do these people think is going to happen? I'm not sure I would want to live in that world.

Bowser
02-15-13, 11:26 PM
I'm not into guns, either, but I have a friend who is one of these Alex Jones acolytes. He recently showed me his AR-15 with grenade launcher, his S&W .44 magnum revolver, bulletproof vest, and ammunition cache. I was adamant that I had no need of a shotgun. What do these people think is going to happen? I'm not sure I would want to live in that world.

Some people are collectors and simply get a rush from their guns. Others are probably a bit nutty and await the end of society. I know a guy who collects, sells, and trades military hardware. He's a true enthusiast, and the nicest guy you could ever know. It takes all kinds, I suppose. I myself wouldn't want the responsibility of owning a gun--what if it was stolen?

spidergoat
02-15-13, 11:34 PM
Some people are collectors and simply get a rush from their guns. Others are probably a bit nutty and await the end of society. I know a guy who collects, sells, and trades military hardware. He's a true enthusiast, and the nicest guy you could ever know. It takes all kinds, I suppose. I myself wouldn't want the responsibility of owning a gun--what if it was stolen?
This isn't merely collecting. They seem to be anticipating the end of civil society. Or at the very least, some intolerable excess of power.

Bowser
02-15-13, 11:44 PM
This isn't merely collecting. They seem to be anticipating the end of civil society. Or at the very least, some intolerable excess of power.

Some people are betting on and preparing for the end of the world. What can you do? I think as long as they stay within the law, they are allowed to milk their paranoia. I know someone who was caught up in the Y2K scare. After it passed he was fine. He did spend a lot of time and money preparing for it.

Mazulu
02-16-13, 05:23 PM
I'm not into guns, either, but I have a friend who is one of these Alex Jones acolytes. He recently showed me his AR-15 with grenade launcher, his S&W .44 magnum revolver, bulletproof vest, and ammunition cache. I was adamant that I had no need of a shotgun. What do these people think is going to happen? I'm not sure I would want to live in that world.

Atheist takeover and brain washing program. Shoot, maybe I need some weapons, and another Bible.

LoRaan
02-18-13, 02:50 AM
You know i can't help but think that everyone claiming you might never need a gun are forgetting a very simple piece of logic. It is better to have and never need than than the other way around.

If you have a rifle, shotgun, pistol, and some basica supplies to carry you through an emergency aren't you in a better place than if you didn't? Do having these things harm you in some way that offsets the advantage of having them when they are needed? And say you never needed them did it really matter that you had them?

In the end it is much like having fire insurance. You will most likely never really need it, but the day you do it doesn't help to go purchase it in the middle of your need.

iceaura
02-18-13, 11:25 AM
Do having these things harm you in some way that offsets the advantage of having them when they are needed? Yes, they do - hence the issue. They create risk - of accident, theft, greater consequences of common error or insanity, etc. And they require not only initial diversion of resources and inevitable opportunity cost (money spent on weaponry is money not spent on, say, solar electrical generation capability, or water purification gear, or better fireproofing of one's house, or simply a spare pair of good boots - let alone the ordinary life investments like a musical instrument for one's children) but maintenance, with its price in time as well as money.

Whether the costs outweigh the benefits would be a highly personal decision, in most cases (I know a retired farmer who has no fire insurance at all - his house is almost impossible to burn, due to stone and cement and metal construction, non-flammable insulation, etc.) But some of the risks and other costs are socialized, and so we all have a some say in the particulars.

billvon
02-18-13, 11:48 AM
It is better to have and never need than than the other way around.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is it better to have 100 gallons of gasoline stored in milk containers in your closet, just in case? In that case is it better to have it and never need it than the other way around?


Do having these things harm you in some way that offsets the advantage of having them when they are needed?

================
Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home

David Hemenway, Ph.D. hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu
Director, Harvard Injury Control Resarch Center

Abstract

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes.
===============
The health risk of having a gun in the home
By Susan Perry | 12/17/12
REUTERS

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes. Notice that the recommendation doesn’t call for parents to simply lock up their guns. It stresses that the weapons need to be taken out of the house. Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership. What he found was sobering, to say the least.

Accidental deaths

To begin with, having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. As Hemenway points out, death certificate data indicate that 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns each year between 2003 and 2007. Half those victims were under the age of 25.

Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.

Nonfatal gun injuries occur at the average rate of 20 a day in the United States — and that doesn’t include pellet-gun injuries (which average 45 day) or injuries that don’t involve a bullet wound (like powder burns and recoil injuries).

“One study of nonfatal accidental shootings found that the majority were self- inflicted, most involved handguns, and more than one third of the injuries required hospitalization,” writes Hemenway. “Injuries often occurred during fairly routine gun handling — cleaning a gun, loading and unloading, target shooting, and so on.”

Suicides

An average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined.

Gun owners and their families are not more suicidal than non-gun-owners, research shows. No are they more likely to have a history of depression or other mental health problems.

But they — and their families — are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun. The reason: Guns are more lethal than other methods.

One study found, reports Hemenway, that “in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state’s population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.”

But “there was no association between gun prevalence and a state’s nonfirearm suicide rate,” he adds.

Homicides

Two-thirds of all murders between 2003 and 2007 involved guns. The average number of Americans shot and killed daily during those years was 33. Of those, one was a child (0 to 14 years), five were teenagers (15 to 19 years) and seven were young adults (20 to 24 years), on average.

Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

“The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage,” writes Hemenway.

“For example, a large percentage of homicides — and especially homicides in the home — occur during altercations over matters such as love, money, and domestic problems, involving acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members; often the assailant or victim has been drinking. Only a small minority of homicides appear to be the carefully planned acts of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill. Most gun killings are indistinguishable from nonfatal gun shootings; it is just a question of the caliber of the gun, whether a vital organ is hit, and how much time passes before medical treatment arrives.”
Benefits?

The possible health benefits of gun ownership are twofold: deterring crime and stopping crimes in progress. But there are no credible studies, says Hemenway, that higher levels of gun ownership actually do these things.

“The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence,” he writes. “However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger. Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home.”

In fact, adds Hemenway, research shows that most self-defense use of guns is not socially desirable. He describes one study in which “criminal court judges from across the United States read the 35 descriptions of the reported self-defense firearm uses from 2 national surveys and found that, even if description of the event was accurate, in most of the cases, the self-defense gun use was probably illegal. Many were arguments that escalated into gun use.”
Real risks

“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”

“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
=======================================

iceaura
02-18-13, 01:07 PM
Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home

David Hemenway, Ph.D. hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu
Director, Harvard Injury Control Resarch Center The author's perspective tends to mislead in its selection of facts. Three points:

a discussion of suicide as abetted by gun ownership, like a discussion of suicide as abetted by windows and balconies, motorcycles (a really significant and often overlooked means), etc, has few implications for most people assessing their own purchases and possessions. And should have no influence whatsoever on governmental policy or law.

self-defense by gun as a health benefit is not restricted to, or even largely comprised of, violent incidents of the type reported to police and officials. The threat to perpetrators created by private gun ownership itself is at least as significant in protecting people - that the author fails to recognize this is visible in his treatment of home burglary stats, where he presents the comparative rarity of burglary of occupied dwellings as an argument for the lack of benefit from guns: in my childhood neighborhood the rate of burglary of occupied dwellings was zero, and the common presence of firearms in the home was no small reason for that. In this way people who keep a firearm handy provide benefits to those who do not, notice.

the risks of gun ownership are not evenly distributed among various classes of people, or even individuals within a class, and using comprehensive populations for one's statistical base does not necessarily inform the individual's decision.

billvon
02-18-13, 03:00 PM
a discussion of suicide as abetted by gun ownership, like a discussion of suicide as abetted by windows and balconies, motorcycles (a really significant and often overlooked means), etc, has few implications for most people assessing their own purchases and possessions. And should have no influence whatsoever on governmental policy or law.

Yes, many things can be used to commit suicide. The "running car in a garage" used to be one method. Nowadays cars are clean enough that that doesn't work any more. Thus cars have gotten safer.

(BTW I'm not talking about gun laws, I was specifically answering the question "Do having these things harm you in some way?")


self-defense by gun as a health benefit is not restricted to, or even largely comprised of, violent incidents of the type reported to police and officials. The threat to perpetrators created by private gun ownership itself is at least as significant in protecting people

That may be true, and was not covered by the study. The study's field was narrower - will a gun in your house more likely harm you than help you?

(In my childhood neighborhood the rate of burglary was zero as well - and people had nothing more than pellet guns to chase away the occasional raccoon.)


the risks of gun ownership are not evenly distributed among various classes of people, or even individuals within a class, and using comprehensive populations for one's statistical base does not necessarily inform the individual's decision.

Agreed. The above is only true in general; it may not apply to specific groups (like, say, soldiers living in barracks.)

iceaura
02-18-13, 06:10 PM
Yes, many things can be used to commit suicide. That was not the point. The point was that (just as with motorcycles) suicide risk is largely irrelevant to a cost benefit calculation of gun acquisition, for most people. (For some, the extra lethality (read:dependability) in suicide might be a benefit, but we are avoiding that kind of consideration).


(BTW I'm not talking about gun laws, I was specifically answering the question "Do having these things harm you in some way?" But you chose a reference that came to a conclusion not about harms - the existence of which I concur with, as seen in the post prior to your reference - but about net or overall health benefit to some vaguely defined public/individual entity. And did so based on evidence and reasoning I found inadequate and flawed, as noted.


That may be true, and was not covered by the study. The study's field was narrower - will a gun in your house more likely harm you than help you? And it did not adequately support the author's conclusion in the matter, as noted.


(In my childhood neighborhood the rate of burglary was zero as well - and people had nothing more than pellet guns to chase away the occasional raccoon.) The key matter was not the burglary rate, but the comparative rate of occupied vs unoccupied house burglary - the situation in which guns provide benefit. My point was that the author overlooked a key factor in drawing his inference, one which tended to undermined his overall conclusion and in particular contradicted his assertion that "no credible study" supports the existence of a net benefit from private gun ownership.

The above is only true in general; it may not apply to specific groups (like, say, soldiers living in barracks.) More significantly, it may not apply to particular individuals within any given group.

billvon
02-18-13, 07:30 PM
That was not the point. The point was that (just as with motorcycles) suicide risk is largely irrelevant to a cost benefit calculation of gun acquisition, for most people.

Many people might indeed perceive that as irrelevant, because they cannot foresee themselves committing suicide, and therefore disregard that risk entirely.

Nevertheless, suicide (specifically suicide enabled by easier access to a nearly ideal tool for that purpose) is harm. And overall a gun in your home is more likely to harm you than help you.


But you chose a reference that came to a conclusion not about harms - the existence of which I concur with, as seen in the post prior to your reference - but about net or overall health benefit to some vaguely defined public/individual entity. And did so based on evidence and reasoning I found inadequate and flawed, as noted.

Fair enough. To be clear I was not speaking to the larger point of "what is better for society?" (One could argue, for example, that enabling mentally unstable people to kill themselves improves overall societal mental health.) I was speaking just to the overall odds of harm.


More significantly, it may not apply to particular individuals within any given group.

Agreed.

LoRaan
02-19-13, 01:05 PM
Yes, they do - hence the issue. They create risk - of accident, theft, greater consequences of common error or insanity, etc. And they require not only initial diversion of resources and inevitable opportunity cost (money spent on weaponry is money not spent on, say, solar electrical generation capability, or water purification gear, or better fireproofing of one's house, or simply a spare pair of good boots - let alone the ordinary life investments like a musical instrument for one's children) but maintenance, with its price in time as well as money.

Whether the costs outweigh the benefits would be a highly personal decision, in most cases (I know a retired farmer who has no fire insurance at all - his house is almost impossible to burn, due to stone and cement and metal construction, non-flammable insulation, etc.) But some of the risks and other costs are socialized, and so we all have a some say in the particulars.

If you own a TV, Radio, Books for entertainment, food that is more than just sustenance providing, condiments, clothing that is fashionable over functional, or a vehicle that exceeds your minimum needs in any way then you have no room to claim that owning weaponry in some way has detracted from your resources. You obviously have money for frivolities as opposed to a tool of resource gathering and self-defense.

billvon
02-19-13, 01:28 PM
If you own a TV, Radio, Books for entertainment, food that is more than just sustenance providing, condiments, clothing that is fashionable over functional, or a vehicle that exceeds your minimum needs in any way then you have no room to claim that owning weaponry in some way has detracted from your resources.

Of course it has. No one (well, very few people at least) have an unlimited supply of money, and thus every decision you make on spending is a decision that you would prefer X over Y.


You obviously have money for frivolities as opposed to a tool of resource gathering and self-defense.

For most people a gun is a frivolity. Indeed, as described above, it is more likely to harm you than to help you defend your house. However, if you prefer to spend money on a gun rather than on a fast car or whatever, go for it.

R1D2
02-21-13, 06:42 AM
For most people a gun is a frivolity. Indeed, as described above, it is more likely to harm you than to help you defend your house. However, if you prefer to spend money on a gun rather than on a fast car or whatever, go for it. I don't need a fast car. Thank you for the permission to "go for it".

Promo
02-21-13, 09:51 AM
I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Also, AK's only cost about 225 bucks who can't afford that.

billvon
02-21-13, 11:38 AM
I don't need a fast car. Thank you for the permission to "go for it".

You don't need a gun either - but if you want to get one, go for it.

Promo
02-21-13, 11:56 AM
You don't need a gun either - but if you want to get one, go for it.

Some people do need guns.

billvon
02-21-13, 11:59 AM
Some people do need guns.

And some people "need" fast cars. However, 99.999% of the time the word "want" would be far more accurate.

Promo
02-21-13, 12:02 PM
And some people "need" fast cars. However, 99.999% of the time the word "want" would be far more accurate.

I'm just going by what you said. And you said NEED, not want.

Bowser
02-21-13, 08:14 PM
I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Also, AK's only cost about 225 bucks who can't afford that.

We practiced with the AK when I was in the Army. It's a respectable weapon. I'm shocked that it so inexpensive.

iceaura
02-21-13, 10:02 PM
I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Frivolity is maybe the kindest description of that. Toys, obviously.

My father once said that you could tell when a kid was mature enough to be trusted with a lawn mower, by the fact that they no longer wanted to mow the lawn. Something like that would be a reasonable criterion for purchase of those kinds of weapons - unrealistic, of course, but a person can dream.

Bowser
02-22-13, 01:04 AM
They were playing with gun control in my state, but gave up when they realized that there's not enough support.

KitemanSA
02-22-13, 10:46 AM
13. More guns tend to mean more homicide, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states. Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

Mazulu
02-22-13, 01:15 PM
I just bought a 1250 watt laser. I plan to use it for home defense. It's practically a light saber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myA7AsLrcRo

Actually, I bought it for recreation, and for starting campfires.

spidergoat
02-22-13, 01:37 PM
I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Also, AK's only cost about 225 bucks who can't afford that.
There's one born every minute!

pjdude1219
02-22-13, 03:53 PM
Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

Because they aren't controlled for other factors

Stoniphi
02-22-13, 04:08 PM
Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

AH! Like here in Detroit where we are no longer the murder capital of the world.......(hint: we have an obscene murder rate AND concealed carry, I have a license and a pistol or 2), not that I would need those as it is so quiet and peaceful here. :)

spidergoat
02-22-13, 05:40 PM
http://www.thepaincomics.com/guns%20are%20for%20pussies.jpg (http://www.thepaincomics.com/)

billvon
02-22-13, 06:24 PM
Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

Because the high crime rate areas need the gun control laws.

When you look at number of guns per person vs gun violence in developed countries it's almost a 1:1 relationship.

6106

Imperfectionist
02-22-13, 10:29 PM
I want a Kentucky Rifle. Or a blunderbuss.

rodereve
02-23-13, 10:22 AM
Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

I would say there's strict gun control laws BECAUSE of high murder rates in those areas.

Why would the areas with low murder rates begin to enact stricter gun control without any precedence. Once more acts of gun violence occur, then there would be more public support for gun control leading to more gun control laws passing.

I don't subscribe to the idea that gun violence in wholly due to how many guns are in the region, but there is no gun violence without a gun.

wellwisher
02-26-13, 10:42 AM
One can obtain anything that is illegal on the black market. The black market benefits by prohibitions, since prohibitions eliminate all legal competition while giving the black market a tax free niche within a booming underground economy. I often wonder how black marketeers kick money back to the politicians who write the laws that give them so much benefit and business. One way would be to use a legal business as a front for the kickback, so it looks kosher.

The latest proposed giveaway to the black market is guns. If this prohibition goes all the way through, the black market will gain a monopoly on guns and will be able to sell guns without any tax liability or background checks. Honest citizens will obey the law and avoid the black market. The criminals, who shop the black market, will still be able to own guns, since the rules for honest citizens do not really apply to the lawless and the black market who follow their own rules. These criminals should also kick back to the democratic politicians since this also makes their chosen profession of crime much easier to do.

billvon
02-26-13, 10:45 AM
The latest proposed giveaway to the black market is guns. If this prohibition goes all the way through, the black market will gain a monopoly on guns and will be able to sell guns without any tax liability or background checks

Good thing no one is proposing that, then.

Promo
02-26-13, 11:54 AM
@SpiderGoat, I feel like you don't appreciate guns?

spidergoat
02-26-13, 01:58 PM
@SpiderGoat, I feel like you don't appreciate guns?

I appreciate them from a design POV, and I acknowledge their usefulness at times, but most of the modern American obsession with them has to do with feeling personally powerless.

Promo
02-26-13, 03:36 PM
I appreciate them from a design POV, and I acknowledge their usefulness at times, but most of the modern American obsession with them has to do with feeling personally powerless.

Makes sense

KitemanSA
03-03-13, 10:40 AM
Because the high crime rate areas need the gun control laws.

When you look at number of guns per person vs gun violence in developed countries it's almost a 1:1 relationship.

6106 Then why do states, cities, and towns that repeal gun control laws ROUTINELY see a drop in gun related crime, and crime in general? I think you have put the cart before the horse.

KitemanSA
03-03-13, 10:43 AM
I would say there's strict gun control laws BECAUSE of high murder rates in those areas. Actually, it seems that strict gun laws result from racism more than anything else. Don't want them uppity Micks to have too much power.

billvon
03-03-13, 05:26 PM
Then why do states, cities, and towns that repeal gun control laws ROUTINELY see a drop in gun related crime, and crime in general? I think you have put the cart before the horse.


Then why do states, cities, and towns that repeal gun control laws ROUTINELY see a drop in gun related crime, and crime in general? I think you have put the cart before the horse.

I think you probably have inverted cause and effect; gun laws are typically repealed when they are not needed, and implemented when they are.

Some stats for you:

==================
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
============================

iceaura
03-04-13, 01:38 AM
I think you probably have inverted cause and effect; gun laws are typically repealed when they are not needed, and implemented when they are. If they are as ineffective in reducing violence as your stats seem to indicate, the "need" is an illusion - sort of like the need for more astrology when our government officials are making bad decisions.

As a matter of curiosity, do you have any examples of gun laws being repealed when they were no longer "needed"?

Tiassa
03-05-13, 12:49 PM
Responsible Gun Ownership


"How did that kid get that weapon? How did he get a loaded weapon? How did they have access to it?" —Lon Zicafoose (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/04/michigan-sheriffs-deputys-4-year-old-son-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-himself/)

A four year-old boy is dead in Michigan after he got hold of his father's gun and accidentally shot himself. This is a story that comes up all too often in these United States.

There really isn't much to say, though we might, as we offer our condolences to Deputy Mark Easter of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department and his family, pause to wonder just how this happens.

At a time when the question of gun violence is intensely political, such questions can be difficult, but if this is not the time to ask, when?

Quite simply: What constitutes a responsible gun owner?

Throughout the American gun debate, we hear two main competing arguments. On one side is the fact of gun violence in our society. On the other is the question of the Second Amendment rights of "responsible gun owners". But what is a responsible gun owner? Was a time, and it seems not so long ago, that one could chuckle about the people who make that argument wandering around, three sheets to the wind, in town streets after the men gathered to form a posse to look for an accountant who allegedly escaped his embezzlement sentence at a nearby federal prison. Or count the bullet holes (two) in the ceiling that, as legend tells, were the spawn of inexperienced attempts to assemble one's own ammunition. Or shooting the cat for pissing on a toolbox. Or needing multiple firearms to kill a possum that cornered the dog. Or ... well, I could go on, but that's all one "responsible gun owner".

But this is a problem; this responsible gun owner is a deputy sheriff, and somehow a firearm was left accessible to a child. This is not a new phenomenon. In December, the nephew of an Oklahoma deputy sheriff accidentally shot himself.

No charges were filed in Oklahoma, and it's likely we'll see none in Michigan, either.

But what are we going to do about this? What is a "responsible gun owner", and who gets to write the definition? Heaven knows, we are a nation filled with "responsible gun owners" who will resent the idea of being told how to conduct themselves and their firearms safely.
____________________

Notes:

Edwards, David. "Michigan sheriff’s deputy’s 4-year-old son accidentally shoots and kills himself". The Raw Story. March 4, 2013. RawStory.com. March 5, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/04/michigan-sheriffs-deputys-4-year-old-son-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-himself/

billvon
03-05-13, 12:53 PM
As a matter of curiosity, do you have any examples of gun laws being repealed when they were no longer "needed"?

Sure, the assault weapons ban.

iceaura
03-05-13, 11:40 PM
"As a matter of curiosity, do you have any examples of gun laws being repealed when they were no longer "needed"?"

Sure, the assault weapons ban. The Federal assault weapons ban was not repealed, and no change in need was involved in allowing it to expire.

Tiassa
03-12-13, 10:40 AM
Trending: To Be or Not to Be an Intruder
In fairness, it's Yakima

Apparently, it's the latest rage among responsible gun owners:


The Yakima County sheriff's office says a man mistook his pregnant wife for an intruder at their Terrace Heights home and shot her, leaving her in critical condition.

(Associated Press (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020528712_apwamistakenlyshootswife.html))

There are more unknowns—both known unknowns and unknown unknowns, though we don't know about the unknown knowns, yet—about the story than anything else, but this is, generally, a discouraging trend. I know that things going bump in the night can be scary, but we should take the moment to remind ourselves that being more likely to accidentally shoot a household member than stop a criminal is no a talking point intended as a suggestion.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Police: Man mistakes wife for intruder, shoots her". The Seattle Times. March 10, 2013. SeattleTimes.com. March 12, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020528712_apwamistakenlyshootswife.html

LoRaan
03-12-13, 12:38 PM
Obviously you have never had children or if you have then yours were either incredibly well behaved as to be saints or so deficient as to be nonfunctional. Kids will get into things. They will find anything no matter how well you hide it. Oddly the more dangerous it is for them to get their hands on something the more skill, cunning and luck they seem to display in acquiring it. One only has to look at "child proof" caps on prescription drugs. I have a 3 year old cousin who can open them in les than ten minutes and he's the slowest at it.

Yes keep your guns where it is not readyily accessible to your children. Also teach your children from the very beginning that it is not a toy. It can't hurt to educate your children.

As for people who accidently shoot family thinking they are intruders, I have to go with common sense here. The common sense says if they did everything they could to identify the person ie turning on lights, calling out, announcing yourself, issuing warning, getting a clear line of sight then the shooter either intended to do the victim harm or vice versa. If the shooter did not try these methods then they likely were trying to harm the victim.

Taking away a person's means of defense is not going to make them safer. In fact doing so has proven to increase violent crime and death rates. Sure less people die of guns but more people die of other things: baseball bats, knives, arson, strangulation...

billvon
03-12-13, 01:16 PM
Taking away a person's means of defense is not going to make them safer. In fact doing so has proven to increase violent crime and death rates.

States with stricter gun laws have lower overall gun deaths AND lower overall violent deaths, on average. When you look at a map of the US, the southern states have both the most lax gun laws and the highest rates of violent deaths.

iceaura
03-12-13, 07:12 PM
States with stricter gun laws have lower overall gun deaths AND lower overall violent deaths, on average. That appears to be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/cause-of-death/violence/by-state/

Comparing these two lists, for example, and including DC as a State, we see that the five States with the lowest violent death rates all have less strict gun laws than most States, and of the five States with the highest violent death rates two (DC and Maryland) have more strict gun laws than most States.

Of the ten least violent States, only one - Hawaii - has stricter than average gun laws.

The rest seem mixed, the only pattern being an apparent prevalence of violent death in the old Confederacy. It is not true that lax gun laws are also concentrated in the old Confederacy - libertarian political pockets are common in the North, and are accompanied by low violent death rates there.

billvon
03-12-13, 07:29 PM
Comparing these two lists, for example, and including DC as a State, we see that the five States with the lowest violent death rates all have less strict gun laws than most States, and of the five States with the highest violent death rates two (DC and Maryland) have more strict gun laws than most States.

The Brady score of "gun law strength" for the top most violent states averages 9.4 out of 100. (using your violent death map and the Brady website map.)
The Brady score for the least violent states averages 17.7 out of 100.

Almost a factor of two difference.

(Correlation does not indicate causation, of course. But the above disproves the assertion that state gun laws increase the odds of violent death within a state.)

LoRaan
03-12-13, 08:27 PM
The Brady score of "gun law strength" for the top most violent states averages 9.4 out of 100. (using your violent death map and the Brady website map.)
The Brady score for the least violent states averages 17.7 out of 100.

Almost a factor of two difference.

(Correlation does not indicate causation, of course. But the above disproves the assertion that state gun laws increase the odds of violent death within a state.)

You're trusting a site with a vested interest. Not smart. In fact it is downright lazy. Do you independant research with a agency with mo political agenda in this. Then you MIGHT have an argument.

But here is the gun owners point why are they being punished for the wrongdoing of other people. If someone in your neighborhood was electricuting people why should your power be turned off? If someone else is speeding why should I be told I can't have a specific car? if someone drinks and drives do they suddenly make alcohol or cars illegal? What if some people went on stabbing sprees are steak knives suddenly illegal? No to all of these. What makes a gun any different?

iceaura
03-13-13, 02:53 AM
The Brady score of "gun law strength" for the top most violent states averages 9.4 out of 100. (using your violent death map and the Brady website map.)
The Brady score for the least violent states averages 17.7 out of 100. Looking directly at the five most violent and five least violent, with DC counted as a "State", I see no reason to revise my original observation. I do not know how the Brady score is derived - perhaps the problem is in the word "average"? - but clearly Maine and Vermont and New Hampshire and Iowa and North Dakota all have less restrictive gun control laws than Maryland and DC, and no more restrictive in general than Louisiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

Compare for yourself.

billvon
03-13-13, 10:48 AM
You're trusting a site with a vested interest.

Which site is that?

The Brady Campaign has a vested interest in accurately ranking states by gun law severity so they can push for more gun laws in states that do not have as many of them. Note that I did NOT get the final scores from them. If you think I did, you didn't read the post.

The other source (violent deaths per state) was posted by Iceaura.


But here is the gun owners point why are they being punished for the wrongdoing of other people.

The same reason drivers are "punished" for the wrongdoing of drunk drivers.
The same reason Internet posters are "punished" by the actions of spammers and trolls.
The same reason pilots are "punished" for the wrongdoings of hijackers.


If someone in your neighborhood was electricuting people why should your power be turned off?

It shouldn't. But it would sure make sense to take a look at who buys electric chairs. Maybe even ask them why they're buying one. Or if there rare hundreds of thousands of electrocutions a year, start registering electric chairs.


If someone else is speeding why should I be told I can't have a specific car?

It shouldn't. But you might be told that your car has to have brakes, a horn and a seatbelt. (o the horror)


if someone drinks and drives do they suddenly make alcohol or cars illegal?

Nope. But they might make drinking and driving illegal. Perhaps require you to register your car and get a driver's license - then take away that license if you get caught drunk driving too many times. Maybe even have sobriety checkpoints (just to "punish" sober drivers of course.)


What if some people went on stabbing sprees are steak knives suddenly illegal?

Nope. But it might get harder to buy a 12 inch "steak knife" with a blood groove.


What makes a gun any different?

It's not. See above. No one is proposing outlawing guns.

billvon
03-13-13, 10:52 AM
Looking directly at the five most violent and five least violent, with DC counted as a "State", I see no reason to revise my original observation. I do not know how the Brady score is derived - perhaps the problem is in the word "average"?

No. I did not use the Brady scores for any averages, just for the ranking of states with strict vs lax gun laws. I used your site for the stats for violent death, then correlated the two.

I agree, though; if you look at just the top five and add DC you see the opposite correlation, primarily because you are skipping Hawaii (which is very low in violence and has a lot of gun laws) and are adding DC (which is not a state and passes laws in a very different manner from states.)


Compare for yourself.

I did! And the more states you use in your averages the more clear the correlation is.

iceaura
03-13-13, 06:17 PM
No. I did not use the Brady scores for any averages, just for the ranking of states with strict vs lax gun laws. Any ranking that fails to agree with the plain facts posted - the actual laws, described and right there to observe - is problematic. Any ranking that did agree with those facts would also agree with the simple observation - the bottom five States in violent death have significantly less strict gun laws without exception, the top five in violent death include at least one State - Maryland - with significantly stricter gun laws. Two if one includes DC, which of course one should, as it is full of US citizens and has both its own gun laws and violent deaths.

I agree, though; if you look at just the top five and add DC you see the opposite correlation, primarily because you are skipping Hawaii (which is very low in violence and has a lot of gun laws) and are adding DC (which is not a state and passes laws in a very different manner from states.) If you drop DC from the table (I didn't "add" it, it was right there) for some reason (your reason makes no sense - the manner in which the laws were passed is irrelevant here), and expand the example size to include Hawaii (Hawaii was not "skipped" - I chose five on each end because it came out to the extreme 10% on each end, which would be the source of greatest statistical significance), you still have no visible positive correlation between gun law severity and violent death rates. That contradicts your assertion, and supports mine.

I'm ignoring the still visible negative correlation, because I don't think gun laws actually correlate with non-gun violent death at all, in either direction - I think the negative correlation visible is an artifact of cultural features of the US population (the authoritarian hangover from the Confederacy and racism, the Asian influence in Hawaii, the farming and hunting and trapping practices of the near-Canadian States, and so forth).

I did! And the more states you use in your averages the more clear the correlation is. That would be you, not me, using "averages"; you, not me, relying on dubious numerical scores for gun law severity that do not appear to match descriptions of the actual laws.

I'm using rank correlation, conservatively and prudently restricted to the extremes of what is in the middle a pretty subjective ranking system not suitable for fine discrimination. (The precision of the Brady "score" as you post it is reason enough for automatic rejection of its validity, even if it didn't fail to match observation of the data.)

The only correlation between gun law severity and overall violent death that is visible from ranking the actual gun laws themselves is negative. Expanding the rank sample to include the less statistically significant muddles the issue (it becomes much more difficult to rank the States in the middle), but we can easily see that places like California and Illinois and the rest of the Western States like Utah are going to reinforce, not invert, the strong initial pattern.

billvon
03-13-13, 06:31 PM
Any ranking that fails to agree with the plain facts posted - the actual laws, described and right there to observe - is problematic. Any ranking that did agree with those facts would also agree with the simple observation - the bottom five States in violent death have significantly less strict gun laws without exception, the top five in violent death include at least one State - Maryland - with significantly stricter gun laws.

Agreed. And again, that is due to the sample size you chose. Increase it to ten and you see the opposite trend.


If you drop DC from the table (I didn't "add" it, it was right there) for some reason

Because we were talking about states. DC is not a state. Again, you can add it if you need to make your stats say what you want them to. You could call it "ranking by states and a district."


I'm using rank correlation, conservatively and prudently restricted to the extremes of what is in the middle a pretty subjective ranking system not suitable for fine discrimination.

Yep. And prudently narrowing your selection criteria to ensure you get the result you want.

iceaura
03-13-13, 06:44 PM
Agreed. And again, that is due to the sample size you chose. Increase it to ten and you see the opposite trend No, you don't. You see a dilution of the significance of what remains the same rank order correlation, and continues to contradict your assertion.

(Actually, I did that in the first post on this tangent, bottom of page 11 - I pointed out that even expanding the sample size to 40%, ten at each end, you still have only one example of strict gun law/low violent death, vs at least two of strict gun law/high violent death: Hawaii; DC and Maryland at least. Correlation still negative)

Because we were talking about states. DC is not a state. No, we are talking about the influence of gun laws on violent death rates in the US. DC is a large and well bounded region with its own residents, gun laws, and violent crime rates. It was included in both of the tables I compared and linked, right along with the States, and I saw no reason to go out of my way to exclude it.

Yep. And prudently narrowing your selection criteria to ensure you get the result you want. The fact that choosing the most significant and clearest and most easily ranked extremes yields strong evidence that contradicts your assertions is just something you have to deal with - it's not a problem with the method.

I used 20% of the total sample, the 10% on each end.

billvon
03-13-13, 07:03 PM
I used 20% of the total sample, the 10% on each end.

OK. I just went back and used 100% of the sample - all 50 states.

The most dangerous 25 states had a Brady average score of 13.5 - indicating that the Brady campaign thinks they do a poor job of gun control based on state laws.
The least dangerous 25 states had a Brady average score of 18.6 - indicating that the Brady campaign thinks they do a better job of gun control based on state laws.

If you like I will go back and add DC. Since the Brady campaign does not rank DC, you'll have to suggest what score you would give them. (Scale of 0 to 100, 0 being Alaska, 100 being Hawaii.)

iceaura
03-13-13, 07:14 PM
The most dangerous 25 states had a Brady average score of 13.5 - indicating that the Brady campaign thinks they do a poor job of gun control based on state laws.
The least dangerous 25 states had a Brady average score of 18.6 - indicating that the Brady campaign thinks they do a better job of gun control based on state laws. Whereas I avoided using dubious and poorly supported interest group "scores", and certainly did not go to the absurdity of averaging them - Christ, you probably didn't even correct for population size.

I directly compared the per capita violent death rates with the gun laws in force. You can do the same.



If you like I will go back and add DC. Since the Brady campaign does not rank DC, you'll have to suggest what score you would give them. I'm beginning to think even less of this Brady score bushwa - they haven't scored the most violent legally defined gun control region in the country? The region whose gun laws have been in the news more often than any others except maybe New York's?

pjdude1219
03-13-13, 09:31 PM
You're trusting a site with a vested interest. Not smart. In fact it is downright lazy. Do you independant research with a agency with mo political agenda in this. Then you MIGHT have an argument.

But here is the gun owners point why are they being punished for the wrongdoing of other people. If someone in your neighborhood was electricuting people why should your power be turned off? If someone else is speeding why should I be told I can't have a specific car? if someone drinks and drives do they suddenly make alcohol or cars illegal? What if some people went on stabbing sprees are steak knives suddenly illegal? No to all of these. What makes a gun any different?

you know the guy quoting a researcher basicly mocked of the scientific community for manufacturing evidence probably shouldn't by complain about dubious sources

pjdude1219
03-13-13, 09:33 PM
Then why do states, cities, and towns that repeal gun control laws ROUTINELY see a drop in gun related crime, and crime in general? I think you have put the cart before the horse.

they don't

pjdude1219
03-13-13, 09:37 PM
Whereas I avoided using dubious and poorly supported interest group "scores", and certainly did not go to the absurdity of averaging them - Christ, you probably didn't even correct for population size.

I directly compared the per capita violent death rates with the gun laws in force. You can do the same without accounting for other factors than guns. so before you go all being morally supierior your argument was as statisticlly invalid as his.

billvon
03-13-13, 11:11 PM
Whereas I avoided using dubious and poorly supported interest group "scores", and certainly did not go to the absurdity of averaging them - Christ, you probably didn't even correct for population size.

??? Neither did you, but still claimed your use of the same lack of correction in a smaller sample size resulted in the " . . . greatest statistical significance." Can't have it both ways.


I directly compared the per capita violent death rates with the gun laws in force. You can do the same.

How do you rate "gun laws?" Is a law that requires you to register your guns equivalent to a law that requires gun ranges to have hearing protection available? Do you just add all gun laws together and use the sum? Which standard do you use?

The Brady standard applies weights to each kind of law. For example, a law that requires background checks on all gun sales scores a 17, whereas a law that requires gun shops to maintain sales records for some amount of time scores a 2. Thus more onerous laws result in a higher score for that state. Here's the criteria if you are interested:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard-descriptions?s=1


I'm beginning to think even less of this Brady score bushwa - they haven't scored the most violent legally defined gun control region in the country?

No, because they scored by state, not by "region." However, as I said, I will let you score DC however you like and re-calculate the averages if you like.


The region whose gun laws have been in the news more often than any others except maybe New York's?

So the answer is - no, now that it's apparent that the result is not to your liking, you will abandon the entire exercise.

I generally find it more illuminating to let the data inform my opinions, as opposed to the converse.

iceaura
03-14-13, 01:05 AM
??? Neither did you, but still claimed your use of the same lack of correction in a smaller sample size resulted in the " . . . greatest statistical significance." Can't have it both ways For the third or fourth time: I wasn't averaging anything, or numerically scoring anything. The violence data I posted is already corrected per capita. Nothing I did is vulnerable in that way. I really shouldn't have to repeat that any more.

How do you rate "gun laws?" Is a law that requires you to register your guns equivalent to a law that requires gun ranges to have hearing protection available? Do you just add all gun laws together and use the sum? Which standard do you use? Exactly the problem with trying to rank the middle of the pack there - might be how the Brady score gets so far from observation and data.

The most strict and the least strict are reasonably clear, and the general category is visible, but that's as far as I think a reasonable person can get. The fact that the clear, easy, and robust category assessment I used - the 10% extremes, expanded to the 20% extremes when you insisted on picking up Hawaii to little effect - apparently conflicts with the Brady score (I'm taking your word for that, haven't checked) casts considerable doubt on that score. That's a pretty big and robust feature to lose.



The Brady standard applies weights to each kind of law. For example, a law that requires background checks on all gun sales scores a 17, whereas a law that requires gun shops to maintain sales records for some amount of time scores a 2. Thus more onerous laws result in a higher score for that state. Here's the criteria if you are interested: Well that's stupid and uninformative, explains where the bs is coming from, and no I'm not interested.

I'm beginning to think even less of this Brady score bushwa - they haven't scored the most violent legally defined gun control region in the country?
No, because they scored by state, not by "region." More idiocy - DC is fully equivalent to a State as far as gun laws are concerned, and failure to score it opens a pretty big hole in their data - DC has been at the center of twenty or thirty years of national public debate on State level handgun laws etc.

However, as I said, I will let you score DC however you like and re-calculate the averages if you like.
My opinion of this scoring and averaging has been clear for a while now, and justified with some argument over multiple posts. In the absence of any response by you relevant to that fact, I'm going to accept concession in that matter.

I generally find it more illuminating to let the data inform my opinions, as opposed to the converse. The Brady score is not data, it's piss poor analysis. Averaging Brady scores does not yield data, but further confusion in the analysis. My posts of descriptions of the actual laws, and my posts of the violent death rates per capita, are data, and I used them without altering them in the slightest - threw nothing out, added nothing in, direct rank category comparison.

R1D2
03-14-13, 09:20 AM
Found some stuff I thought I would post... I feel safer.


http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/gun-ownership-among-us-women-climbs
Gun ownership among US women climbs
... a small but growing share is coming down on the side of having a gun. The gun-gravitation is not drastic: 15 percent of women in the US own guns. That, however, is up from 12 percent as recently as 2007, according to a Gallup poll released earlier this month....Women also appear to be taking greater part in gun sports. Five million women took part in target shooting in 2011, a 51.5 percent jump from 2001, according to the National Sporting Goods Association. Women who hunt increased 41.8 percent in the same period, from 1.8 million to 2.6 million, according to the association's annual sports participation reports.


Another teacher, Rebecca Goertzen, said that 90 percent of Alaska homes have guns, so even if a student’s parents don’t own a firearm, it’s likely they will be invited to a house that does have a firearm.

http://m.juneauempire.com/outdoors/2011-10-21/floyd-dryden-6th-graders-learn-gun-safety

kmguru
03-14-13, 04:26 PM
Could not buy 9 MM Glocks for over 2 weeks locally...

pjdude1219
03-15-13, 10:58 AM
Any ranking that fails to agree with the plain facts posted - the actual laws, described and right there to observe - is problematic. Any ranking that did agree with those facts would also agree with the simple observation - the bottom five States in violent death have significantly less strict gun laws without exception, the top five in violent death include at least one State - Maryland - with significantly stricter gun laws. Two if one includes DC, which of course one should, as it is full of US citizens and has both its own gun laws and violent deaths.
I'm ignoring the still visible negative correlation, because I don't think gun laws actually correlate with non-gun violent death at all, in either direction - I think the negative correlation visible is an artifact of cultural features of the US population (the authoritarian hangover from the Confederacy and racism, the Asian influence in Hawaii, the farming and hunting and trapping practices of the near-Canadian States, and so forth).
That would be you, not me, using "averages"; you, not me, relying on dubious numerical scores for gun law severity that do not appear to match descriptions of the actual laws.

there isn't a negative correlation. for their to be correlation they would have had to increased gun control scrictness and had gun violence go up which zero research has ever shown. the national academy of sciences has shown there is either no correlation between gun control and gun violance or a mild postive correlation. your entire argument is based from wanting gun control to be bad and not from facts or logic. a simple pairing between the 2 sets says nothing.

LoRaan
03-15-13, 11:21 AM
you know the guy quoting a researcher basicly mocked of the scientific community for manufacturing evidence probably shouldn't by complain about dubious sources

Well the most recent analysis of that study has shown that he was indeed correct and their mocking was unjustified. The problem with searching for ways to counter an argument is that some sides forget to check to see if anyone else has countered their counter. I actually checked everything out and Lott was upheld by independent research and analysis a little over five years ago. Since then the people who have claimed Lott was wrong have not tried to refute the newer research and the analysis of their errors.

LoRaan
03-15-13, 11:30 AM
without accounting for other factors than guns. so before you go all being morally supierior your argument was as statisticlly invalid as his.

Yet Gun Control Advocates would use similar tactics. Comparing countries with liberal gun ownership vs countries that outlaw the weapon. Then they cherry pick their data wanting only to compare just gun related homicides and almost always use totals instead of the rate per hundred.


Why does your right to feel comfortable outweigh my right to choose how I defend myself?

billvon
03-15-13, 11:36 AM
Why does your right to feel comfortable outweigh my right to choose how I defend myself?

It doesn't. But your right to feel like you are safe does not outweigh the rights of your neighbors to not be killed. Thus the tradeoffs represented by gun laws.

===========
Manslaughter charges against man who fired through floor
July 04, 2012

A Gary man has been charged with firing a shot through the floor and killing a 62-year-old man who was sleeping in a bedroom below, police said.

Jamalh Nelson, 32, was arrested earlier this week by the Great Lake Regional Task Force and identified by witnesses, police said. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter and unlawful use of a weapon.

Nelson was drinking in an upstairs apartment in the 600 block of West 60th Street when he fired a shot into the floor on Nov. 12 last year, police said. The bullet struck Dewitt Wright in the shoulder as he lay in bed in the room below, police said. Wright later died.
============

pjdude1219
03-15-13, 11:51 AM
Yet Gun Control Advocates would use similar tactics. Comparing countries with liberal gun ownership vs countries that outlaw the weapon. Then they cherry pick their data wanting only to compare just gun related homicides and almost always use totals instead of the rate per hundred.


Why does your right to feel comfortable outweigh my right to choose how I defend myself?
It's not my want to be confer table against your right to defense it my right to be and feel safe against your want of a gun. Your gross mischarcterzation of the issue and laws does change the underlying facts

pjdude1219
03-15-13, 11:54 AM
Well the most recent analysis of that study has shown that he was indeed correct and their mocking was unjustified. The problem with searching for ways to counter an argument is that some sides forget to check to see if anyone else has countered their counter. I actually checked everything out and Lott was upheld by independent research and analysis a little over five years ago. Since then the people who have claimed Lott was wrong have not tried to refute the newer research and the analysis of their errors.
Still lying. No evidence has ever shown him to be correct.

Cowboy
03-23-13, 03:42 PM
I suppose you are with people like Mike Huckabee, who says that God is prevented from doing anything about killers, because we fail to kiss his ass enough.

There were no school shootings in the Holy Roman Empire, you know.

Cowboy
03-23-13, 03:47 PM
This goes back to the cost in human lives to buy the right to "be ready" for the return of King George III.

Or King Obama I, or King [Whoever Is Next].

Funny how so many liberals were screaming about fascism when Bush was president, yet simultaneously insist that the need to resist oppressive government is a thing of the distant past.

Cowboy
03-23-13, 03:58 PM
I note that the discussion has digressed to 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives' again. :rolleyes: I find it most unfortunate that we cannot just be practical, moderate and common - sensible about the issue. :(

Last week, here in Detroit, 2 shootings caught our attention. The first: a 70 year old basketball coach escorts 2 of the Martin Luther King high school girls basketball team from the school to their cars in the parking lot after practice. 2 teen aged boys (1 an 11th grade student at that school) jump them in the parking lot, pull pistols and demand money. 1 grabs the gold chain around the coaches neck. The coach pulled a pistol and shot both boys. The 11th grader died at the scene, the other "suspect" is in critical condition at hospital. The coach is a police reserve officer (required to carry his weapon at all times) and has a license to carry the pistol.

Meanwhile, at a bus stop a distance away, a fellow waiting for a bus was approached by an armed man who demanded his valuables. Instead of his wallet he produced a firearm and killed the robber. He was also licensed to carry the weapon.

I see good points on both retaining second amendment rights AND restricting the type of weapons available to pretty much anyone along common sense lines. Single shot muzzle loaders were the most sophisticated firearms on the planet when the constitution was written, this needs to be taken into serious consideration in this discussion. We need to throw in some minimal barriers to criminals obtaining firearms as well - merely check anyone who wants to own a firearm, like we do with cars. It would be a good idea to keep real close tabs on sociopathic people with known violent tendencies even if that bordered on invasion of their privacy for the practical purpose of protecting society.

Single shot muzzle-loaders were the most advanced firearm in the world at the time the Constitution was written. This tells me that the Founding Fathers had no problem with Americans owning "military style" weapons.

pjdude1219
03-23-13, 10:07 PM
Or King Obama I, or King [Whoever Is Next].

Funny how so many liberals were screaming about fascism when Bush was president, yet simultaneously insist that the need to resist oppressive government is a thing of the distant past.

no liberal has ever said that. that is a srawman at best a flat out lie at worst.

keems
03-24-13, 03:49 AM
I live in one of those pink zones, I wonder what that suggests about humanity? I wish not to say :P.

Still though its a bad world out there.

Tiassa
03-26-13, 05:05 PM
But It's Not Really Gun Control ....

While many seem to think the idea of a government devising firearms regulations with an eye toward crime, justice, and public safety is an abomniable offense against human freedom, a gun seller in Arizona has reminded us that, really, it's just about feeling empowered.


The owner of a Tucson gun store where Mark Kelly recently purchased an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle canceled the transaction because Kelly did not plan to keep the rifle for his personal use.

Doug MacKinlay, owner of Diamondback Police Supply at 170 S. Kolb Road, posted on the store’s Facebook page Monday that he canceled the transaction March 21. A full refund was sent to Kelly via express mail, MacKinlay said.

“I determined that it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store to complete the Federal Form 4473 and NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession of this firearm,” MacKinlay said in the statement.

(Duarte (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/tucson-gun-store-owner-cancels-mark-kelly-s-ar-/article_65e90fa2-95a8-11e2-89fd-0019bb2963f4.html))

See, the government shouldn't decide who can buy what weapon for legal purposes; that power should be reserved to the political whims of store owners.

But it's not really gun control. It's just gun nuts being, well, nutty. Welcome to Arizona.
____________________

Notes:

Duarte, Carmen. "Tucson gun store owner cancels Mark Kelly's AR-15 purchase". The Arizona Daily Star. March 25, 2013. AZStarNet.com. March 26, 2013. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/tucson-gun-store-owner-cancels-mark-kelly-s-ar-/article_65e90fa2-95a8-11e2-89fd-0019bb2963f4.html

Tiassa
04-09-13, 12:30 PM
Responsible Gun Ownership

As the gun violence debate burns from coast to coast, we must remember to take care to not punish responsible gun owners. Yet, what is a responsible gun owner?

It might be a tough answer, but when we're asking the question about law enforcement officers, perhaps there's a problem:


Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy.

Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative in a bedroom of his Lebanon home when the toddler came in and picked up a gun off the bed. Sheriff Robert Bryan says the weapon discharged, hitting 48-year-old Josephine Fanning.

She was pronounced dead at the scene. The child is not related to her or her husband.

Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident and that within seconds of Fanning placing the gun on the bed, the toddler picked it up.

(Burke (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130408/us-accidental-shooting-4-year-old/))

On the up side, we can note that the firearm was not Deputy Fanning's service weapon; the AP reports, "the sheriff says the deputy's weapons are normally stored in a safe".

Oh, good.

Within seconds.

Let me guess, this was, in a morbid coincidence, the only one of the firearms that was loaded?

No, seriously. Within seconds.

It just seems there is something self-evident here.


• • •

Meanwhile, in Toms River, New Jersey, authorities are trying to figure out how a four year-old playing outside managed to go into his house, obtain a .22 rifle, and shoot a six year-old (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/gun-violence-children-shooters_n_3044642.html), all while the shooter's parents were home.


http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8172/huffpo20130319anotherwe.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/gun-violence-children-shooters_n_3044642.html)
____________________

Notes:

Burke, Sheila. "Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife". Associated Press. April 8, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. April 9, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130408/us-accidental-shooting-4-year-old/

Associated Press and Huffington Post. "2 Shootings Involve 4-Year-Olds In 3 Days". The Huffington Post. April 9, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. April 9, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/gun-violence-children-shooters_n_3044642.html