Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:38 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Potato View Post
It would have to be a lot more than maybe a few dozen deaths in a bad year.
OK, the current rate of massacres is "insignificant". Does your refusal to name a number that you would start to care about mean you haven't actually thought this thing through?

[quote}I suppose that deserves a "dear lord" if you think that it's sensible to burn massive amounts of political capital and institute sweeping and expensive policy changes to address every single theoretically preventable death. [/quote]That's what's called a "straw man" here. The assertion that if you can't do everything, you should do nothing is one common example.

Quote:
So, because addressing the real problem is hard, let's instead spend our limited resources on a solution that will do basically nothing and be nearly as expensive, and will in fact make addressing the real problem even harder? I think it's my turn to
If you refuse to act, and in your case even refuse to consider the problem "significant", then you're part of what makes it hard.

If you have an actual, useful proposal to make here, rather than simply declare regular massacres "insignificant" (Dear Lord!) then let's have it, please. But if all you want to do is show how obstructive and blinkered about life itself the gun-fetishist faction can be, how insane their arguments are, well, you're doing fine.
  #252  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:41 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
And there we go. Why should our side agree with "reasonable regulations" that you propose when you admit that your ultimate goal is a complete gun ban?
You have been repeatedly asked about what you might consider "reasonable regulations" to be. Your answer seems to be "None, and it's your fault I won't consider it." Is that about right?

Quote:
With respect
Bullshit.
  #253  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:02 PM
Stealth Potato Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
OK, the current rate of massacres is "insignificant". Does your refusal to name a number that you would start to care about mean you haven't actually thought this thing through?

That's what's called a "straw man" here. The assertion that if you can't do everything, you should do nothing is one common example.
A straw man? Hardly. All you're doing is trying to put me on the defensive by pressing a completely irrelevant line of questioning. You're also using emotional posturing to try to demonize my recalcitrance on that particular point. "Insignificant? Dear lord! These are massacres we're talking about!" Etc., etc. Look, when mass shootings with assault weapons start killing more people than deer and honeybees do, we'll talk. Until then, I hope you'll understand that my argument is based on the statistics of risk, and emotional appeals won't convince me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you refuse to act, and in your case even refuse to consider the problem "significant", then you're part of what makes it hard.

If you have an actual, useful proposal to make here, rather than simply declare regular massacres "insignificant" (Dear Lord!) then let's have it, please. But if all you want to do is show how obstructive and blinkered about life itself the gun-fetishist faction can be, how insane their arguments are, well, you're doing fine.
My entire position is "the problem is not significant enough to justify much action." You are upbraiding me for not agreeing with you. That's not really a legitimate debating tactic.

Now, if you come around and say "let's ban all handguns," I'll have no reason to criticize the honesty of your argument. I won't agree with you that handguns should be flat-out banned, but at least we'll be talking about something that's a real problem, namely the eight or nine thousand handgun murders every year.

I am not saying that the deaths from mass shootings should be ignored. I simply do not think we need any further restrictions on "assault weapons" when they do so little damage. I don't think we should restrict the rights or confiscate the property of millions in order to maybe save a couple dozen lives a year. If you think that's "fetishism" or "insane," well, I can't help you there. We as a society make statistical tradeoffs that manifest in actual, real fatalities all the time -- I don't think it's any more insane with guns than with all the rest.
  #254  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:23 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Stealth Potato - this thread has been eye opening for me to say the least. I know plenty of gun owners and my father was one when I grew up (he's probably also used a gun more than just about anyone on these boards, both hunting for food in the depression and as a decorated WW2 and Korean theater combat vet).

I agree with you. The debate on assault rifles is probably just what the pro gun lobby wants as a diversion from real reform. It's a total rat hole from a meaningful debate on a) gun controls and b) other societal ills that need to be tackled to bring down the level of violence (people kill people) which is also far higher in the US than in the rest of the developed world.

R - Care to address why all of Europe should be compared instead of just the traditional developed Western Europe? Other than the fact that all of Europe brings up the firearm murder rate or you really think Eastern Europe is reasonably comparable to the US? And if you're going off of a country basis, then why does Norway, with a household gun ownership rate of 32% (vs US at 39%) have a firearm murder rate of 0.04 per 100k (vs Vermont at 0.48)? That's a huge discrepancy if you want to compare apples to Norway.

If guns are the root of the problem that explains the discrepencies between States, then how do you explain Nevada at 4.72 per 100k? These are all anecdotal factoids with nits being picked down until either side gets confirmation bias. It's complicated and difficult to draw direct correlations between even neighboring States. That said, the US average still is the worst of any country in the developed world by more than 2x. We have a problem, whatever the root cause might be.

JXJohns, Care to address straw purchases in your Gun A Gun B scenario? And how those "legally" purchased / straw purchased Gun A's don't bleed over into the Gun B owners?

Last edited by China Guy; 12-30-2012 at 11:24 PM.
  #255  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:24 PM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
OK, the current rate of massacres is "insignificant". Does your refusal to name a number that you would start to care about mean you haven't actually thought this thing through?
It might mean that he's unwilling to provide a completely irrelevant soundbyte for you to latch on to. It's like expecting you to put a number on how many deaths it would take for you to support banning same-sex marriage - it's a stupid question, and you wouldn't answer if you knew I planned going to take the quote out of context to make you look like a terrible person.
  #256  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:29 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
BTW, I'm using Wiki if they have data as I hope it's reasonably unbiased. I'm also doing random searches and avoiding the ones with obvious biases. You have better unbiased data, I'm happy to look at it.
  #257  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:54 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
R - Care to address why all of Europe should be compared instead of just the traditional developed Western Europe? Other than the fact that all of Europe brings up the firearm murder rate or you really think Eastern Europe is reasonably comparable to the US? And if you're going off of a country basis, then why does Norway, with a household gun ownership rate of 32% (vs US at 39%) have a firearm murder rate of 0.04 per 100k (vs Vermont at 0.48)? That's a huge discrepancy if you want to compare apples to Norway.

If guns are the root of the problem that explains the discrepencies between States, then how do you explain Nevada at 4.72 per 100k? These are all anecdotal factoids with nits being picked down until either side gets confirmation bias. It's complicated and difficult to draw direct correlations between even neighboring States. That said, the US average still is the worst of any country in the developed world by more than 2x. We have a problem, whatever the root cause might be.
Becuse you are stuck on the firearm homicide rate and not the total homicide rate. Why obsess about the tool used to commit the homocide vs. the fact that a human beings life was taken? The rate national homicide rate of 0.6 per 100,000 in Norway.

Note that the per capita GDP of Norway is $97,254 vs $48,112 for the US. They are a very rich country and rich people tend to be less likely to commit homicide.

They also don't have a huge orginized crime issues we have.

But really the question is for you, it is not hard to buy semi auto rifles or pistoles in Norway In fact they are Number 11 for the number of firearms per capita.

So the fact they have such a low murder rate goes with my claim, that there is no real correlation between the number of firearms owned by law abiding citizens and the rate of homicides.

But you keep handing me information that fits my claim...can you provide any that fits yours?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 11:55 PM.
  #258  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:55 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
It might mean that he's unwilling to provide a completely irrelevant soundbyte for you to latch on to.
He might indeed think that, but if we're trying to get down to discussing what "reasonable" regulation of gun ownership would constitute, the point cannot be set aside; it's central. Your observation would only be valid if this were simply a screaming exercise. But maybe, for him, it is.

SP, you have already informed us that our current rate of massacres is not "significant" - your word. How is it irrelevant not to ask you for clarification of your definition of significance? Are you in fact open to discussing the topic? You are clearly trying to limit it to only assault weapons, and apparently for the reason China Guy states, that it's a diversion intended to kill any real action on the broader problem of gun killings. Is that your intent or isn't it?
  #259  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:07 AM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Rat Avatar: Norway versus Vermont isn't point set match. It's Calvinball. howsabout tackling

Western Europe versus Eastern Europe?

Western Europe versus the US?

Nevada (non border and shall issue concealed carry State) versus Vermont?
  #260  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:17 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Rat Avatar: Norway versus Vermont isn't point set match. It's Calvinball. howsabout tackling

Western Europe versus Eastern Europe?

Western Europe versus the US?

Nevada (non border and shall issue concealed carry State) versus Vermont?
You are the one that is claiming there is a correlation, it is your responsiblity to show there is a pattern.

Show that those diffrences are due to gun ownership.

Heck show that there is ANY correlation between lawful civilian gun ownership rate and the homicide rate.

So far no one has produced a SINGLE cite to show that there is any relation.

Nore has anyone provided cites that show that banning guns significantly reduces the homicide rate.

Really is it so hard to provide that with all times it has been done in the world?

But you are not looking at the stats and the evidence. You are arguing based on emotion so I may as well be fighting with a Christian about the existance of god.

Until you provide a real cite I'm calling your bluff. You can't show that lawful civilian ownership effects homicide rates or that banning firearms from those citizens reduces homicide rates.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-31-2012 at 12:19 AM.
  #261  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:30 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Here is a link to a Harvard Study that comes to the same conclusions I did.

Warning PDF: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Quote:
These statistics reinforce the point
that murder rates are determined by basic socio‐cultural and eco‐
nomic factors rather than mere availability of some particular form
of weaponry. Consider Norway and its neighbors Sweden, the
Netherlands, and Denmark. Norway has far and away Western
Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its
lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun owner‐
ship rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway be‐
tween (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun
murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is
even higher, though only slightly.
So there is your cite...can you come back with a cite or just more mythology?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-31-2012 at 12:32 AM.
  #262  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:32 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
You kinda messed up the linklink.
  #263  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:32 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
You kinda messed up the linklink.
Yes just hit the edit window to fix it I was missing the closeing bracket on the /URL
  #264  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:49 AM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Your cite is 10+ years old and I'm really unclear as to the bias. Has this been peer reviewed. Forgive me for not reading the whole thing since it runs 35 pages. Drawing conclusions like the English ban on firearms is I would argue a decade out of date and not overly relevant to draw a conclusion for today (would want to see something updated since a trend that ends 10 years ago is a trend that ends 10 years ago). Since you've obviously read through the cite, can you like summarize the meaningful parts country by country where a country went from largely unfettered gun ownership to a ban? And if you're really positing that guns are not the problem (not legal gun ownership but the over all level/availability of guns in the US), then what is the problem and what are the solutions?

Otherwise don't debate and dodge all the inconvenient questions. Keep asking to prove a hypothetical. I see ancedotes and the tired "guns don't kill people" and "responsible gun owners are not the problem." Keep cherry picking data to prove a point. But I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions that I cited...

Fact: US has by far the highest rates of both gun ownership, firearm homicides and homicides of any developed nation. By more than 2x.

We have a problem full stop, unless you think leading the developed world by 2x is in fact something we should do?

One commonality between the other developed nations is
a) per capita gun ownership levels
b) every other developed nation has significantly stricter gun regulation laws (I'm pulling this out of my ass since my other cites don't seem to carry any weight and it is true for the few countries that I know about like Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Japan))
c) no country has gone from the US per capita levels of guns to a significant ban, so there's no empirical data to give you. But see point b) that the developed (and many emerging market) countries with stricter gun regulation laws have far few homicide and far fewer gun related homicide rates)
d) lawful civilian gun ownership in the US allows for guns to go underground and become readily available for non lawful owners. Posters in this thread boast about when the jackboots come to confiscate their weapon will say they just sold it on to Joe Blow.

I'm not saying that a + b + c + d is 100% correlated with the US murder/murder by firearm rate, but this is the Straight Dope and at least it leads me to question the "guns don't kill people" meme your 10+ year old Harvard pdf notwithstanding. You have another explanation for American exceptionalism in this regard? Eg, leading the rest of the developed world in murders by at least 2x if not 10x?

(Let's not convolute "lawful gun owners" with the availability/per capita guns in the US. That' a different debate. And how many of those "lawful" guns have gone through straw purchases or "sold on Craigslist" without any kind of registration or background check? And then used for crimes. Puh-leeeeeese.)

Last edited by China Guy; 12-31-2012 at 12:54 AM.
  #265  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:54 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Your cite is 10+ years old and I'm really unclear as to the bias.
Note you have NO cites...and you refuse to read this one so why should I waste my time.

Claiming that other countries have more strict gun control when you state you really don't know? Really? (BTW the swiss requirements are simliar to our background checks but only happen once and they do have private sales)

I cannot debate dogmatic beliefs so have a good new year sir.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-31-2012 at 12:57 AM.
  #266  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:59 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
Glancing over, there seems to be several sections devoted to defending the work of the aforementioned Lott. Take with a grain of salt, I suppose.

And the name of the aptly yclept Mauser led me here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/06/23/mauser/

Excerpts:

Quote:
....Above is a graph of the “horrifying increase in violent crime over the past decade” in Canada. If you compare the violent crime rate now with that of ten years ago, you’ll see that it has actually gone down. There has been no increase, let alone a “horrifying” one. And guess where this graph comes from? His own Fraser Institute Study.. He even refers to it in his letter....
And
Quote:
....Professor [sic] John Lott has shown how violent crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than in the rest of the United States.

Of course, my readers will be well aware that Ayres and Donohue’s more comprehensive study has shown that crime has actually tended to fall faster in the states without carry laws, and that Lott’s results go away when his coding errors are corrected. Mauser is well aware of Ayres and Donohue’s work—we discussed it at great length in 2002 and 2003 on the firearmsregprof list, a mail list that Mauser is on, and yet he does not mention their work at all. In fact he doesn’t cite any critics of Lott at all.
Make of it what you will, I suppose.
  #267  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:05 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Glancing over, there seems to be several sections devoted to defending the work of the aforementioned Lott. Take with a grain of salt, I suppose.

And the name of the aptly yclept Mauser led me here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/06/23/mauser/

Excerpts:



And


Make of it what you will, I suppose.
Yet can you make any correlation betweeen civilian firearms ownership rates and homicide? Or are you just dismissing this because it doesn't fit your world view?
  #268  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:20 AM
Stealth Potato Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Your observation would only be valid if this were simply a screaming exercise. But maybe, for him, it is.
You're the one who seems to think that emotionally charged language can be a substitute for reason and facts in a debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
SP, you have already informed us that our current rate of massacres is not "significant" - your word. How is it irrelevant not to ask you for clarification of your definition of significance?
"At what number would you begin to care?" is an impossible and perhaps meaningless question to answer. But it's reasonable to qualify risks by comparison to other risks that impact (or don't) our decision-making processes. Is it the act of a reasonable person to change their day-to-day life in any way to mitigate the risk? If not, it might just be an insignificant risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Are you in fact open to discussing the topic? You are clearly trying to limit it to only assault weapons, and apparently for the reason China Guy states, that it's a diversion intended to kill any real action on the broader problem of gun killings. Is that your intent or isn't it?
No, that's not my intent at all, and I'm puzzled that you would come to that conclusion, since what I'm trying to do is more or less the opposite: I'm trying to take assault weapons out of the discussion entirely, on the basis that they're misused so infrequently compared to handguns.

I've probably made it clear here before that the status quo on gun laws is fine by me; I certainly wouldn't advocate for stricter controls on my own initiative. I feel quite safe in my person and being killed with a handgun is very, very low on the list of things I worry about. But I realize that I am demographically advantaged: I'm white, I live in a relatively wealthy and low-crime area, I'm not a drug user, I'm not a member of a gang, etc. I have a lot of sympathy for the view that handguns should be harder to get, with a view toward reducing their ubiquitous availability to criminals. I'm open to discussion in that direction.
  #269  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:21 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
Quote:
...Or are you just dismissing this because it doesn't fit your world view?
Actually, I'm not offering an opinion on statistical analysis, I'm a mathtard, and doing so tends to expose me to mockery and derision. If you are better equipped, then perhaps you can explain the author's comments on Lott's errors (if that is what they are). Seeing as you are innocent of such biases as render me incapable of accurate analysis.

Last edited by elucidator; 12-31-2012 at 01:22 AM.
  #270  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:50 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Actually, I'm not offering an opinion on statistical analysis, I'm a mathtard, and doing so tends to expose me to mockery and derision. If you are better equipped, then perhaps you can explain the author's comments on Lott's errors (if that is what they are). Seeing as you are innocent of such biases as render me incapable of accurate analysis.
I am not free of biases, nor did I ever make that claim.

If you completely remove any of Lotts data from that paper it does little to change the conclusion.

This is why you cannot find a cite that shows a correlation. Because it doesn't exist despite both sides claims and wishes.

The presence of legally owned firearms has little to no effect on homicide rates overall.
  #271  
Old 12-31-2012, 02:06 AM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
Note you have NO cites...and you refuse to read this one so why should I waste my time.

Claiming that other countries have more strict gun control when you state you really don't know? Really? (BTW the swiss requirements are simliar to our background checks but only happen once and they do have private sales)

I cannot debate dogmatic beliefs so have a good new year sir.
Can you drop the legally owned firearms bullshit? Or at least cite how legally owned (or one time legally owned firearms) are not a significant part of the murders in the US?

I didn't cite every other fricking developed nation, but if you bothered to check you'll find that they have significant more controls than in the US. And I pointed out knowledge on a half dozen or so developed nations, so forgive me if I don't go through and spoon feed each and every developed nation only to be nitpicked on the definition of a developed nation or someone rathole instead of honest debate.

BTW, Here's a cite on the Swiss regulations from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

It is not very similar to the US as a matter of fact. And having known many Swiss militia army officers over the years (I worked for UBS for 4 years, and a large percentage of the Swiss execs were reserve officers), they would laugh their ass off at your ascertations.

I have cited to you that the US homicide rates and homicide by firearms rate is at least double that of any other developed country. If you want to include Norway, then it's a serious order of magnitude higher. What more do you need?

I can't cite a scenario (PROVE to me where a country has gone from US levels to restricted gun ownership) and what that's done to the homicide rate. Nice strawman.

I love the Harvard study - it's more than a decade out of date, which alone will call into question its validity for now. And I seriously doubt if you've even read it.

Or do you not think that the US has a murder problem? And you're seriously saying that guns (not legal gun owners) are completely innocent of the issue?
  #272  
Old 12-31-2012, 02:14 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit
And how different is this from what our instant background checks?

And why lump all states together when they have vastly different gun laws and socioeconomic realities?

Because it lets you make a correlation that doesn't exist.
  #273  
Old 12-31-2012, 08:15 AM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
OK, the current rate of massacres is "insignificant". Does your refusal to name a number that you would start to care about mean you haven't actually thought this thing through?
You're asking how many hairs can a man have on his head before he isn't bald. Of course no one can name a number.
  #274  
Old 12-31-2012, 09:58 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
I am not free of biases, nor did I ever make that claim.

If you completely remove any of Lotts data from that paper it does little to change the conclusion.

This is why you cannot find a cite that shows a correlation. Because it doesn't exist despite both sides claims and wishes.

The presence of legally owned firearms has little to no effect on homicide rates overall.
No, you didn't make the claim, you simply offered the possibility that the reason I don't simply collapse into abject agreement with you is due to my "world view".

As for Mr. Lott, it seems that he has feathered himself a comfortable nest being the favorite academic of a particular segment of the political arguments. Further, his standards for candor and unbiased research are not reassuring. Lying douchebag, to adopt the vernacular.

Then, the cherry atop the turd sundae, we hear that efforts to conduct the sort of unbiased research we might all crave, those of us in pursuit of fair and honest debate, are stymied by people who's minds are made up. Of course, its not impossible that the AMA is in cahoots with the CDC to flim-flam the American public. Rather doubt that, myself.

Given all that, your snapper ending about the non-effect of gun ownership on violent crime pretty much has to be taken as a bald assertion. And, "world view" notwithstanding, bald assertions are not convincing. One would hope.

So, outside of bald assertions, bogus data and aspersions upon my reasoning ability: got anything else?
  #275  
Old 12-31-2012, 10:21 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Potato View Post
You're the one who seems to think that emotionally charged language can be a substitute for reason and facts in a debate.
IOW, "No U". Wonderful.

Quote:
"At what number would you begin to care?" is an impossible and perhaps meaningless question to answer.
No, as already pointed out, it's the heart of the subject. If you can't, or won't, support the position you've taken, that's your own problem.

Quote:
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that handguns should be harder to get, with a view toward reducing their ubiquitous availability to criminals. I'm open to discussion in that direction.
Great. However, you just finished saying that the status quo is fine with you. So, can you give us any actual specifics, instead of more of what you call "emotionally charged language" about just what changes you would consider reasonable and responsible? That is what the rest of us are discussing here; well, most of us anyway.
  #276  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:05 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Let's stop right there. A distinction needs to be made in purchasing guns legally in a registered fashion.

One can go to a gun show and buy a firearm or get one via a private sale and there is no trace to the individual that purchases, even though this may be legal in some jurisdictions. These firearms can be involved in illegal activities. It's a big problem. I count these firearms as part of the problem group, and I don't think you do. Care to clarify.

There's ton's of stuff out there from the ATF and elsewhere on straw purchases. Mayors against illegal guns website has a PDF here: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....-purchases.pdf
Based on what I stated earlier, if one purchased a gun illegally, they would be part of Group B. In my state I don't need to run a private sale through a dealer, I have done so many times. If someone wouldn't pass a background check so they bought a gun from someone other than a dealer to avoid the check, that is an illegal purchase.

Further, it looks like nobody else wants to have a serious discussion of any positive change as they are quibbling over cites, and turning it into a binary "ban everything it's for the children" vs. "don't touch my stuff" discussion. I tried to set some common ground that we could all work from so that the emotions and everything else could be set aside.
  #277  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:37 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
No, you didn't make the claim, you simply offered the possibility that the reason I don't simply collapse into abject agreement with you is due to my "world view".
No I am saying that the reason you refuse to provide any cite is the data doesn't fit into your "world view"

The fact that you admit that you don't understand numbers and then complain about the cite purely based on source instead of content fits with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
As for Mr. Lott, it seems that he has feathered himself a comfortable nest being the favorite academic of a particular segment of the political arguments. Further, his standards for candor and unbiased research are not reassuring. Lying douchebag, to adopt the vernacular.

Then, the cherry atop the turd sundae, we hear that efforts to conduct the sort of unbiased research we might all crave, those of us in pursuit of fair and honest debate, are stymied by people who's minds are made up. Of course, its not impossible that the AMA is in cahoots with the CDC to flim-flam the American public. Rather doubt that, myself.
No, I was giving a reason that those Republicans were acting foolishly, you are looking for a massive "gun lobby" conspiracy to hide how dangerous guns are and there isn't one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Given all that, your snapper ending about the non-effect of gun ownership on violent crime pretty much has to be taken as a bald assertion. And, "world view" notwithstanding, bald assertions are not convincing. One would hope.

So, outside of bald assertions, bogus data and aspersions upon my reasoning ability: got anything else?
You are the one calling for guns to be banned, YOU are the one who should be able to show some place in the world that reducing the number of guns lawfully held by the public significantly reduced homicides OR that the number of homicides is even tied to the rate of firearm ownership.

This is NOT a high standard and yet you can't provide it at all and now you are trying to win the debate through attrition.
  #278  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:01 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Based on what I stated earlier, if one purchased a gun illegally, they would be part of Group B. In my state I don't need to run a private sale through a dealer, I have done so many times. If someone wouldn't pass a background check so they bought a gun from someone other than a dealer to avoid the check, that is an illegal purchase.

Further, it looks like nobody else wants to have a serious discussion of any positive change as they are quibbling over cites, and turning it into a binary "ban everything it's for the children" vs. "don't touch my stuff" discussion. I tried to set some common ground that we could all work from so that the emotions and everything else could be set aside.
As an honest debate, I don't think you can split legal versus illegal ownership. Since, of course, there is a huge problem with straw purchases that end up in circulation.

It's like saying the "legal" gun owners aren't a problem. Well, "legal" owners are in fact a problem if that allows firearms to get into circulation and used for crime.

Care to address how to fix the straw purchases problem?
  #279  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:16 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
You are the one calling for guns to be banned, YOU are the one who should be able to show some place in the world that reducing the number of guns lawfully held by the public significantly reduced homicides OR that the number of homicides is even tied to the rate of firearm ownership.

This is NOT a high standard and yet you can't provide it at all and now you are trying to win the debate through attrition.
Here ya go: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...ted-drop-crime There's a link there to a nifty PDF that really goes into detail.

The one country that has reduced the number of firearms significantly is the UK and Wales. Homicides has fallen to a 10 year low as of financial year 2008/2009. Coincidently enough your cited Harvard Study ended 10+ years ago, so I guess now we can safely ignore that one.

Interestingly enough, they included this paragraph on circumstances of the homicides. One thing that jumps out to me about England and Northern Wales is that most of the murders take place with a knife, and 53% were due to a quarrel, revenge attack or loss of temper. Even worse when the victim is acquainted with the perp. It's not unreasonable to think that there might have been more murders if there were firearms available. That would explain to a certain extent the much higher firearm and murder rates in the US.

Circumstances of the homicides
Further information is collected on the circumstances of the homicides. This shows that around a half (53%, or 346 offences) of homicide cases in 2008/09 were due to a quarrel, a revenge attack or a loss of temper. This proportion was higher where the principal suspect was known to the victim (61%), compared to when the suspect was unknown to the victim (42%). Seven per cent of homicides (45 offences) occurred during robberies or burglaries and four per cent (25 offences) were attributed to irrational acts8. As at 24 November 2009, the apparent circumstances were not known for 26 per cent of homicides (168 offences recorded in 2008/09. (Table 1.06). This figure may decrease as police carry out further investigations.

RA - how do you want to handwave away that England put in strict gun controls starting from 1988, and now homicide and homicides by firearms are at a 10 year low.
  #280  
Old 12-31-2012, 01:45 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Here ya go: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...ted-drop-crime There's a link there to a nifty PDF that really goes into detail.

The one country that has reduced the number of firearms significantly is the UK and Wales. Homicides has fallen to a 10 year low as of financial year 2008/2009. Coincidently enough your cited Harvard Study ended 10+ years ago, so I guess now we can safely ignore that one.

Interestingly enough, they included this paragraph on circumstances of the homicides. One thing that jumps out to me about England and Northern Wales is that most of the murders take place with a knife, and 53% were due to a quarrel, revenge attack or loss of temper. Even worse when the victim is acquainted with the perp. It's not unreasonable to think that there might have been more murders if there were firearms available. That would explain to a certain extent the much higher firearm and murder rates in the US.

Circumstances of the homicides
Further information is collected on the circumstances of the homicides. This shows that around a half (53%, or 346 offences) of homicide cases in 2008/09 were due to a quarrel, a revenge attack or a loss of temper. This proportion was higher where the principal suspect was known to the victim (61%), compared to when the suspect was unknown to the victim (42%). Seven per cent of homicides (45 offences) occurred during robberies or burglaries and four per cent (25 offences) were attributed to irrational acts8. As at 24 November 2009, the apparent circumstances were not known for 26 per cent of homicides (168 offences recorded in 2008/09. (Table 1.06). This figure may decrease as police carry out further investigations.

RA - how do you want to handwave away that England put in strict gun controls starting from 1988, and now homicide and homicides by firearms are at a 10 year low.
Nope, because the US homicide rate is at a 50 year low with more states allowing carry and without a England style confiscation.

Sure it is still higher but it if was the gun ban in England that caused murder rates to drop how to you explain it in the US, or the rest of Europe including countries with large amounts of guns?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-31-2012 at 01:46 PM.
  #281  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:22 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
No I am saying that the reason you refuse to provide any cite is the data doesn't fit into your "world view"...
Which is different how, perzackly?

Quote:
...The fact that you admit that you don't understand numbers and then complain about the cite purely based on source instead of content fits with this....
Not quite. I don't pretend to be gifted in statistical analysis with attendant mathematical models. Doesn't mean I "don't understand numbers". Actually, not even close.

Quote:
...No, I was giving a reason that those Republicans were acting foolishly, you are looking for a massive "gun lobby" conspiracy to hide how dangerous guns are and there isn't one....
Interesting news! So, that article in JAMA was total bullshit, then? And you propose to prove this....how? Or do you propose to simply stamp your foot and insist that it is so? Your rebuttal consists of "Nunh-unh!"? Concise and to the point, I'll give it that.


Quote:
You are the one calling for guns to be banned....
Nope. Never said any such thing. Tell you what, I just got myself a nice bottle of Irish whiskey for New Years. You provide a cite of me saying that, and I'll paypal you the cost of one for yourself. And you have to put up? Nothing. Totally a gift. One cite, all it takes, me saying "ban all guns". Take your time, the limitation on this offer is eternity. You'll need it.
  #282  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:22 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You have been repeatedly asked about what you might consider "reasonable regulations" to be. Your answer seems to be "None, and it's your fault I won't consider it." Is that about right?
I think that the current regulations on guns are pretty reasonable. They are the only consumer product that requires an FBI background check for every purchase at retail. Now, if I want to sell a gun to my brother, there is no need for the feds to get involved. If I sell more than a couple of guns a year, I need a federal license which comes with an extensive background check, much expense, and constant scrutiny by the BATF.

If I want to keep the gun at home, then no need for anyone else to be concerned. If I want to carry it concealed in public, then I need a state license with yet another background check and a safety class.

But since we are having a knee jerk reaction to one horrible incident, let's concentrate on laws that would have prevented it. A new AWB, registration, safety training, background checks on private sales, and anything else I've heard proposed would do nothing, and for that reason I suspect that it is only about making in harder to own guns instead of doing anything productive. I've offered the proposal of allowing concealed carry in schools which you characterize as insane.

If you can offer a gun control proposal that would solve these statistical blips and still retain individual rights to keep guns without an undue burden, I will listen, but none have been put forward. I'm tempted to say that in a free society, not much will stop a random act of a crazy person. We need to find out why certain people want to do these terrible things to begin with and address those.
  #283  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:25 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Nope. Never said any such thing. Tell you what, I just got myself a nice bottle of Irish whiskey for New Years. You provide a cite of me saying that, and I'll paypal you the cost of one for yourself. And you have to put up? Nothing. Totally a gift. One cite, all it takes, me saying "ban all guns". Take your time, the limitation on this offer is eternity. You'll need it.
So you don't support a new AWB? Have you called your Congressman and the White House to tell them this?

Or is this one of those, "I don't support banning guns, but an AWB is reasonable, handgun bans are reasonable, semi-auto bans are reasonable, but you can keep your single shot shotguns and rifles locked at an approved range" misdirections?
  #284  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:31 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
But since we are having a knee jerk reaction to one horrible incident, let's concentrate on laws that would have prevented it.
Such as...?
  #285  
Old 12-31-2012, 03:39 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
Nope, because the US homicide rate is at a 50 year low with more states allowing carry and without a England style confiscation.

Sure it is still higher but it if was the gun ban in England that caused murder rates to drop how to you explain it in the US, or the rest of Europe including countries with large amounts of guns?
Round and round, you keep shifting goal posts so there's never any point to actually debate. I would actually like to have a debate but we can't get seem to fix any goalposts. Now you're fine with the US as a whole instead of State by State, and it's developed Europe?

You asked for a country that introduced significant gun bans. AFAIK, England is the only country to have done so. England homicide and firearm homicides are significantly lower than the US. English firearm homicides have declined for the past 10 years. Prove this trend is not related to the gun bans in England?
  #286  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:06 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
I think that the current regulations on guns are pretty reasonable. They are the only consumer product that requires an FBI background check for every purchase at retail.
If you wanted to sell a gun to Joe Blow or to some anonymous person at a gun show or arrange a buy off the internet, then is a FBI background check required? Seems not as any cursory internet Search will show, including this Today Show expose.

So, practically, a FBI background check isn't actually required.

JTGain - not trying to bust balls here, but this grey market seems to blow a whole in the whole responsible gun buyer/owner thing. Am I missing something obvious?
  #287  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:15 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
So you don't support a new AWB? Have you called your Congressman and the White House to tell them this?

Or is this one of those, "I don't support banning guns, but an AWB is reasonable, handgun bans are reasonable, semi-auto bans are reasonable, but you can keep your single shot shotguns and rifles locked at an approved range" misdirections?
I am always pleased to have someone offer to listen with great care and concentration as I rare back and give a lengthy discourse on any given subject. But you are bringing in a whole different set of parameters than Rat did. You can review the chain of statements with relative ease, simply by scrolling up. Perhaps a little animated paperclip will pop up, and say "You seem to be confused about what elucidator did or did not say, can I help you with that?" But I have every confidence that you will not require any such assistance.

But rather than bore you to tears with such, I will simply point out my previous statements, and offer you the same generous option I have offered him. To witless, if you can find a post by me wherein I declare a position of "banning all guns", I will cheerfully forward to you the funds required for quite a good bottle of Irish whiskey.

Your characterization of my position as a "misdirection" is neither accurate nor relevant, and you are kindly advised to butt out. My dispute with Rat on this issue is simply what I did or did not say, your interpretations are your own, and you are welcome to them. But they do not obligate me in any way.

Be advised that Irish whiskey is more expensive than Scotch, for the good and sensible reason that the Irish are not inclined to give up perfectly good whiskey for mere money.
  #288  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:33 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
As an honest debate, I don't think you can split legal versus illegal ownership. Since, of course, there is a huge problem with straw purchases that end up in circulation.

It's like saying the "legal" gun owners aren't a problem. Well, "legal" owners are in fact a problem if that allows firearms to get into circulation and used for crime.

Care to address how to fix the straw purchases problem?
My opinion? The only way stop straw purchases which I describe as one person buying a gun for another who wouldn't pass a BG check is to make the penalty for a straw purchase as severe and guaranteed as those for converting guns to full auto:
Quote:
Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations.[17] A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute.[18] For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000.[19]
LINK

Illegal, full auto guns are not a real problem, regardless of what is shown on TV shows and movies. The penalties are just too severe as compared to the utility gained. From what I have read, the penalty for straw purchases is 10 years also, but is rarely applied.

I can just about guarantee you that few gun owners would have an issue with a significant raise in the penalties associated with the straw purchases. Add to that a good marketing campaign to make sure everyone knows that buying a gun for someone WILL get you a lot of hard time in a Federal pen and it WILL cost you a lot of money in fines.
  #289  
Old 12-31-2012, 04:42 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
If you wanted to sell a gun to Joe Blow or to some anonymous person at a gun show or arrange a buy off the internet, then is a FBI background check required? Seems not as any cursory internet Search will show, including this Today Show expose.

So, practically, a FBI background check isn't actually required.

If you arrange a purchase on the internet to buy a gun from someone in another state, it has to go through an FFL meaning it will require a BG check. If you buy it from someone in your own state, there is no Federal law requiring a BG check, although there may be a state law requiring it.

Quote:
JTGain - not trying to bust balls here, but this grey market seems to blow a whole in the whole responsible gun buyer/owner thing. Am I missing something obvious?
Not to jump in on JT's action here but it's not a gray market. The laws are what they are. You may not agree with them, and you may want to change them, but that makes me no less of a responsible gun seller or buyer by following them.
  #290  
Old 12-31-2012, 05:33 PM
Stealth Potato Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No, as already pointed out, it's the heart of the subject. If you can't, or won't, support the position you've taken, that's your own problem.
Your insisting doesn't make it so. I can perfectly legitimately claim that a number is insignificant without troubling myself to name the quantitative threshold, even supposing there is one. If you disagree, you can ask me why I think the number is insignificant. I'm not sure that you ever did ask, but nonetheless I gave you a qualitative answer. You're free to reject it, and if you do I'd be interested in your reasoning. But in any case, giving you a number that I would consider "significant" would not change the basis of your disagreement with my qualitative judgment of insignificance, nor would it support or oppose my position. It's irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Great. However, you just finished saying that the status quo is fine with you. So, can you give us any actual specifics, instead of more of what you call "emotionally charged language" about just what changes you would consider reasonable and responsible?
If you can point out where I've used emotionally charged language myself, I'd appreciate it. I do my best to stick to facts and not fear-mongering.

As for "actual specifics" -- well, since I have just said that the status quo is fine, I am content to argue for or against the ideas that others propose. For one, I'm no criminologist, mental health professional, or social policy expert. My opinion on which measures will work (in the sense of producing a significant reduction (oh no, there's that word again) in the number of homicides per year) is uninformed at best and should be mistrusted.

However, I will open my big fat mouth and give the uninformed opinion that a combination of 1) handgun licensing, training, and registration requirements, 2) a ban on all private handgun sales without the requisite background check, and 3) holding the last registered owner's feet to the fire if a gun is used in a crime, might be effective. The aim would be to keep handguns out of the hands of everybody except those who are willing to undergo extra legal scrutiny. And I think that, provided the licensing were offered on a shall-issue basis, it could pass constitutional muster. Maybe. And as a gun owner myself, I wouldn't consider it onerous to be licensed and registered for my handguns. My only objection (and, at least in my opinion, the only reasonable objection) to registration is the concern that it might be used as a basis for further restriction or confiscation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That is what the rest of us are discussing here; well, most of us anyway.
Indeed. Some of us are pursuing interminable dialogues on red herrings.
  #291  
Old 12-31-2012, 05:54 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post

Interesting news! So, that article in JAMA was total bullshit, then? And you propose to prove this....how? Or do you propose to simply stamp your foot and insist that it is so? Your rebuttal consists of "Nunh-unh!"? Concise and to the point, I'll give it that.
You said "Nunh-unh!" to any cite with a pro-gun researcher while pointing to a known pro-gun control org iike the AMA and their publication JAMA which has been known to also push junk science on the topic. Not only that but your "CITE" from them is a "Viewpoint" it is an op-ed piece and thus opinion.

But the bigger part is that the US is NOT the entire world, you can't show that it worked in ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

It didn't do much in England, it didn't do much in Australia.

You are hanging onto this like it is "nano termite" or some other silly conspiracy theory.

When all you have to do is show "gun ban A reduced crime more than in other areas that didn't have ban" And that is what you can't provide.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-31-2012 at 05:55 PM.
  #292  
Old 12-31-2012, 07:01 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,959
RA - you keep claiming it didn't work in England. I've cited you where in fact it has worked in England with rates at a 20 year low. And here's the PDF link so you can read the quarterly police stats yourself. Care to address or you just keep obfuscating by asking for CITES?
  #293  
Old 12-31-2012, 09:24 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,475
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
To witless, . . .
Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]
  #294  
Old 12-31-2012, 09:44 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,234
Its a pun. On the phrasing used when specifying, as in "to wit: (the following proposition)". No insult intended, crafted or even subtly implied. And who would know better than I?
  #295  
Old 12-31-2012, 10:25 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
RA - you keep claiming it didn't work in England. I've cited you where in fact it has worked in England with rates at a 20 year low. And here's the PDF link so you can read the quarterly police stats yourself. Care to address or you just keep obfuscating by asking for CITES?
So you are going to gloss over the fact that the US is at a 50 year low?

why do you get the special pleading.?
  #296  
Old 12-31-2012, 11:03 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
So you are going to gloss over the fact that the US is at a 50 year low?

why do you get the special pleading.?
What does whether or not the US is at a 50 year low have to do with whether or not it worked in England?
  #297  
Old 12-31-2012, 11:16 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
What does whether or not the US is at a 50 year low have to do with whether or not it worked in England?
Let me see:

The fact that homicides in England are at 20 year lows means England's gun policies are a smashing success, but

The fact that homicides in the US are at 50 year lows means that US gun policies are a miserable failure.

Did I sum up your opinion correctly?
  #298  
Old 12-31-2012, 11:51 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,326
Is there room in your philosophy for the possibility that, if we banned the guns, our low would be even lower? Maybe only 9,000 people would die from handguns every year, instead of over 10,000?
  #299  
Old 12-31-2012, 11:57 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Is there room in your philosophy for the possibility that, if we banned the guns, our low would be even lower? Maybe only 9,000 people would die from handguns every year, instead of over 10,000?
If we "banned the guns" effectively there would be a handful of deaths from handguns every year. Would be a lot more deaths from other methods though.

But hey - if we mandated a 2" thick steel armor on all cars, and mandated speed limits of no more than 20 mph, we'd have a lot less than 32,000 vehicle-related deaths too. Do you think it's a good idea?

Last edited by Terr; 12-31-2012 at 11:58 PM.
  #300  
Old 01-01-2013, 12:02 AM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
If we "banned the guns" effectively there would be a handful of deaths from handguns every year. Would be a lot more deaths from other methods though.

But hey - if we mandated a 2" thick steel armor on all cars, and mandated speed limits of no more than 20 mph, we'd have a lot less than 32,000 vehicle-related deaths too. Do you think it's a good idea?
Yep. A lot fewer people would be driving, because at 20 mph, they wouldn't be able to get to work without using public transit. MPG would be terrible, and, since the top speed's only 20 mph, you might as well ride a bike, which would ease traffic, improve parking, improve people's health.

Anything else you want to suggest?

Oh, and, hey...
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy
RA - you keep claiming it didn't work in England.
What's up with that?

Last edited by Ethilrist; 01-01-2013 at 12:06 AM. Reason: I like string
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017