Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 12-30-2012, 04:00 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Why does it matter if the majority of teachers don't carry? The idea is that the crazy bastard has no idea who might be carrying. Any teacher or administrator COULD be carrying, and in some circumstances might plug the guy before he shoots anyone.

I took a jab at Wal-Mart earlier, but when has there been a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart? Never? Because the rednecks there are carrying guns. A crazy person finds some other place to do maximum damage: Gun Free Zones.
Because the wording left the impression of teachers being forbidden, their efforts stymied. Very possibly a perfectly innocent wording, but worthy of question. I'll take a wild stab at it, and guess that the vast majority of teachers would prefer money to be spent on mundane concerns, like books. 'Puters. Stuff like that.

And have you any statistics on the redneck prevalence at Wal-Mart? Not that I doubt it, mind, the redneck is far less advanced then the peckerwood. Though both look down on disdain upon the cracker.
  #202  
Old 12-30-2012, 04:04 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
And exactly why does a "hunting" rifle need a flash suppressor? Grenade launcher? Talking about not know how to shoot - if you need a grenade to bring down the deer, you'd better plan on buying groceries on the way home.
Fishing, maybe?
  #203  
Old 12-30-2012, 04:06 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Because the wording left the impression of teachers being forbidden, their efforts stymied. Very possibly a perfectly innocent wording, but worthy of question. I'll take a wild stab at it, and guess that the vast majority of teachers would prefer money to be spent on mundane concerns, like books. 'Puters. Stuff like that.

And have you any statistics on the redneck prevalence at Wal-Mart? Not that I doubt it, mind, the redneck is far less advanced then the peckerwood. Though both look down on disdain upon the cracker.
What money? No money is needed to simply allow teachers and administrators to carry. It would probably save money as it would be one less law that needed to be enforced.

I would guess that a non-zero portion of teachers and administrators would carry if allowed. And the bad guys won't know who is carrying and who isn't.

And I don't have a cite for the redneck percentage at Wal-Mart. You could go there on the first of the month and observe.
  #204  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:03 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
...And the bad guys won't know who is carrying and who isn't....
Just the sort of thing that would surely deter any reasonable person.
  #205  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:10 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
How do you find non-registrants?
How do you find drug users? It's basic police work, nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
If it seems insane, it's only because you are focused on the wrong thing: guns.
Do you really need to have it repeated to you? People with guns kill more innocents than people without guns. Yes, guns play a role. If you have no realistic or even thought-out proposal whatever to address the people problem, and you don't, then you address the killings problem by something that can be done. Or else you are claiming that your own claimed "right" to own an AR-15 is more important than the right of 12,000 people per year to life. Yes, that seems insane. Because it fucking is insane.

Quote:
Guns, like free speech or press, are tools that can be used for good or evil. Let the good guys have them; the bad guys have them already.
OK, that is what you have to address the people problem. To create a distinction between good guys and bad guys. Fine, let's explore that: Who are these "bad guys", how do you distinguish them from "good guys", and how do you propose to take their guns away? You might find it's not so easy to define a distinction in such a way that places you comfortably and inarguably among the good guys, but this is your argument and you can defend it. Now: What is a "bad guy"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
If these weapons are so dangerous that they pose an existential threat to society, why weren't people demanding they be banned over half a century ago?
They were, and they haven't stopped.
  #206  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:27 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Or else you are claiming that your own claimed "right" to own an AR-15 is more important than the right of 12,000 people per year to life. Yes, that seems insane. Because it fucking is insane.
Please cite where 12,000 people per year are killed with AR-15s or even assult weapons.

Please cite where gun bans have reduced the number of homicides.

Even Feinstine admitted that the number of deaths by weapons covered in the AWB were about 34 per year.

Not that that many would be saved but that is the number of homicides committed with those types of weapons in total.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 05:29 PM.
  #207  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:31 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,908
I'm certainly not referring only to those types of weapons.

Now, can you address the actual point or can't you? Rights are in conflict here. How do you sanely put your claimed right (which remarkably exists only in the US) to own (insert your favored noun here) over the right to life itself?
  #208  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:33 PM
Kable Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Or else you are claiming that your own claimed "right" to own an AR-15 is more important than the right of 12,000 people per year to life. Yes, that seems insane. Because it fucking is insane.
Maybe it's as simple as that. But is it really insane? The right to smoke cigaretts, drink alcohol, eat fat and sugar, etc, all seem to outweigh their even worse consequences.
  #209  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:38 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I'm certainly not referring only to those types of weapons.

Now, can you address the actual point or can't you? Rights are in conflict here. How do you sanely put your claimed right (which remarkably exists only in the US) to own (insert your favored noun here) over the right to life itself?
It doesn't only exist in the US and thank you for admitting you are for a complete ban.

But you are avoiding the fact, even with a across the board ban show me evidence that it will decrease the murder rate.

Australia type bans didn't work do so, Mexico's bans haven't worked.

Can you not provide a cite that shows that banning lawful ownership of firearms reduces the mainly criminal on criminal murder rate?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 05:39 PM.
  #210  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:39 PM
Stealth Potato Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Because, again, it does nothing to prevent these mass shootings.
Can we stop talking about what may or may not prevent mass shootings? Mass shootings are so infrequent that their death toll is insignificant in a country of hundreds of millions. All this talk about arming teachers is just as unnecessarily paranoid and reactionary as the talk of surrounding schools with armed guards or concertina wire or TSA checkpoints with millimeter wave scanners or land mines or whatever.

That, and we need to realize that nothing is going to prevent the lightning-strike madman mass shootings except getting rid of 1) all the semiautomatic weapons, or 2) all the mentally ill people who would do such a thing. The first item isn't desirable (at least not for gun rights folks) and the second probably isn't possible; but then I'm not a mental health professional so I'll leave that question to those who are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Do you really need to have it repeated to you? People with guns kill more innocents than people without guns.
Since the discussion seems to be focusing on "assault weapons" like the AR-15, it should be noted that this is only true when you mean people with handguns. Because in fact, people without guns of any kind kill more innocents than people with rifles, assault weapons included.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Or else you are claiming that your own claimed "right" to own an AR-15 is more important than the right of 12,000 people per year to life. Yes, that seems insane. Because it fucking is insane.
You've overestimated by a couple orders of magnitude there. Nearly all of those deaths are from handguns, not semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. The popularly defined class of "assault weapons," which includes the AR-15 and many similar rifles, has been involved in fewer than 400 deaths in the last eight or nine years. A much less sensational number, especially considering that, to put it in your words, I think my right to have a cocktail with dinner is more important than the right of thirty thousand or so per year to life.

If you want to talk about more regulation on handguns, then at least we'll be talking about something that could conceivably make a difference to our considerable firearms violence death toll. I think we can have a reasonable discussion about that, and possibly even identify mutually acceptable compromises between gun rights and the public safety impact of handguns.

But please, let's put "assault weapon" bans back on the shelf with the other pointless, paranoid, and reactionary ideas, like arming teachers and schoolchildren.
  #211  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:46 PM
dexter dexter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Though both look down on disdain upon the cracker.
Wait a minute! I resemble that remark! Uh... wait...what?

BTW, crackers use whips, not guns.
  #212  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:50 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
It doesn't only exist in the US
Nowhere else is the claim made widely, or even at all.
Quote:
and thank you for admitting you are for a complete ban.
Only because I do place a higher value on life itself.

Quote:
But you are avoiding the fact, even with a across the board ban show me evidence that it will decrease the murder rate.

Australia type bans didn't work do so, Mexico's bans haven't worked.
I'm sure you can cite those "facts".

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 12-30-2012 at 05:51 PM.
  #213  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:56 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Potato View Post
Mass shootings are so infrequent that their death toll is insignificant in a country of hundreds of millions.
How many of them would you consider significant? Dear Lord.

Quote:
Since the discussion seems to be focusing on "assault weapons" like the AR-15, it should be noted that this is only true when you mean people with handguns.
The "assault weapons" discussion is in play only because a full cure for the problem cannot be practically achieved immediately. But there's no reason not to discuss the full ramifications of the full issue.

Quote:
But please, let's put "assault weapon" bans back on the shelf with the other pointless, paranoid, and reactionary ideas, like arming teachers and schoolchildren.
The best way to avoid action on any matter is to insist on more study of the problem. The second-best way is to nitpick the details. The third-best way is to denigrate proposed actions with derogatory adjectives. Congratulations on invoking all three.
  #214  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:56 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
How do you find drug users? It's basic police work, nothing more.

Do you really need to have it repeated to you? People with guns kill more innocents than people without guns. Yes, guns play a role. If you have no realistic or even thought-out proposal whatever to address the people problem, and you don't, then you address the killings problem by something that can be done. Or else you are claiming that your own claimed "right" to own an AR-15 is more important than the right of 12,000 people per year to life. Yes, that seems insane. Because it fucking is insane.
Let's start with that 12,000 number and the types of firearms being used. It's handguns, not AR-15s or all of the other assault weapons combined.

Looking at handguns, there are two types of owners. Group A includes those that purchased their guns legally through dealers or private parties, and Group B those who own stolen guns purchased from other than reputable outlets.

Can we agree that a large number of the homicides that make up that 12,000 number are committed by Group B and not Group A?

Can we agree that a large number of those homicides committed by Group B used illegally obtained handguns?

Can we further agree that if we truly want to take a dent out of that 12,000 number we start there?

Can we agree to the fact that there is both a "why" AND and a "how" for each of those homicides?

If we can agree on all of that, we can start the discussion, leaving emotions at the door.

Last edited by JXJohns; 12-30-2012 at 05:59 PM.
  #215  
Old 12-30-2012, 05:59 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Nowhere else is the claim made widely, or even at all.Only because I do place a higher value on life itself.

I'm sure you can cite those "facts".
What claim? A right to bear arms?

As for laws not having an effect, yes it has been documented in this and other threads, here is a post of mine in another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
So really what you are saying is you are just working on a "hunch" We know that it didn't have effect on "normal" gun crime due to several studies that are newer than your cite.

Sorry I could not find a free version of this.

Australian firearms legislation and unintentional firearm deaths a theoretical explanation for the absence of decline following the 1996 gun laws Public Health, Samara McPhedran, Jeanine Baker, Public Health, Volume 122, Issue 3

PDF link warning

Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, Dr. Jeanine Baker and Dr. Samara McPhedran, British Journal of Criminology, November 2006.



As for the mass killings I am very very happy Australia hasn't suffered any in a while and that is great news but to claim it was all even part due to the NFA is just not acceptable as a debate point without some form of cite.

You did still have gang killings...more than 3 decades of spree killings post NFA

Unfortunatly we have a much worse problem with gangs and murder here in the US but if you avoid violent felons and don't sell or buy drugs your risk of murder is tiny.

I would appricate any cite that shows any correlation between the number of legal firearms owned and the murder rate or spree murder rate.
Your turn, I will ask again for a cite or I will assume your claims are not based on facts but are purely fantastic.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 05:59 PM.
  #216  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:05 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Can we agree that a large number of the homicides that make up that 12,000 number are committed by Group B and not Group A?
If you can explain why you wish to draw the distinction there, and refuse to discuss murders obtained with legally-obtained guns, or the fact that most illegally-obtained guns were originally legal.

So, why?
  #217  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:06 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you can explain why you wish to draw the distinction there, and refuse to discuss murders obtained with legally-obtained guns, or the fact that most illegally-obtained guns were originally legal.

So, why?
Either its a fact or not. If you can't get past that, whats the point?
  #218  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:06 PM
ed anger ed anger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Because, again, it does nothing to prevent these mass shootings. None of these people have any idea of getting out alive, let alone worry about jail. So, Lanza's mom registers her guns, with fingerprints and picture ID, how does it change the outcome?

Say Lanza himself bought the guns with fingerprints and ID. Would that have stopped him?

Again, I'm for a reasonable measure that actually does something constructive instead of passing a law just for the sake of passing a law.
it can do quite a bit. i assume people on both sides of the gun control issue want to know that legal guns are with their legal owners, and that police can track any illicit gun trade.
  #219  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:09 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Either its a fact or not. If you can't get past that, whats the point?
Not all facts are relevant. For some, invoking them is distracting or actually obfuscatory. That's the point.
  #220  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:13 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not all facts are relevant. For some, invoking them is distracting or actually obfuscatory. That's the point.
I'm not trying to do either.

The powers that be might get some sort of "assault weapon" legislation passed but we all know it wont do dick. I thought you were interested in discussing what could work, and along with that, something that might actually be embraced by enough gun owners to make passage likely.

If I read your post wrong, let me know. I'll go back to watching football.
  #221  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:14 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not all facts are relevant. For some, invoking them is distracting or actually obfuscatory. That's the point.
Like that unsubstantiated claim that restricting the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens has a significant effect on the homicide rate?

Or are you just going to keep going without providing any cites?
  #222  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:25 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Only because I do place a higher value on life itself.
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?

Do you agree with your neighbor in a property dispute over a foot of land when he has all but told you that next month he will sue you for an acre?

With respect, I don't trust that all you want is ban on "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines. I think you want all of my guns and won't stop with "reasonable regulations."
  #223  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:31 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
....Or are you just going to keep going without providing any cites?...
This link has appeared in a couple of related threads, but your comment about providing cites is....inspirational.

Quote:
....The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research....
Silencing the Science on Gun Research
Journal of the American Medical Assoc.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1487470

Gosh, its almost like one side of this argument would prefer less research, despite their complete certainty about what that research would reveal. Of course, you can't trust gun-grabbers, better to trust people with rock solid academic credentials and a spotless record for reliability. Like that Lott fellow, a veritable paragon.....

Last edited by elucidator; 12-30-2012 at 06:32 PM.
  #224  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:35 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
This link has appeared in a couple of related threads, but your comment about providing cites is....inspirational.



Silencing the Science on Gun Research
Journal of the American Medical Assoc.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1487470

Gosh, its almost like one side of this argument would prefer less research, despite their complete certainty about what that research would reveal. Of course, you can't trust gun-grabbers, better to trust people with rock solid academic credentials and a spotless record for reliability. Like that Lott fellow, a veritable paragon.....
Oddly enough the world is not controlled by the US congress, even studies in other parts of the world (where they have done bans) would be something.

But the AMA was being harassing, did they also berate their patients about riding motorcycles or flying in general aviation or about how they drove to the doctors office?

All of those have a higher per exposure hour risk rate.

But I will not defend the actions of the Republican party, the only reason I am here trying to fight ignorance is so that we don't hand power in Washington to the Republican party by passing useless laws.

The social costs of that will be much higher IMHO.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 06:36 PM.
  #225  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:37 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
How many of them would you consider significant? Dear Lord.
It would have to be a lot more than maybe a few dozen deaths in a bad year. 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. Well, actually, only the ones that make headlines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The "assault weapons" discussion is in play only because a full cure for the problem cannot be practically achieved immediately. But there's no reason not to discuss the full ramifications of the full issue.
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
  #226  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:53 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Also note, if the cause of the homicide rate was the effectiveness of "modern" (if 60 year old technology is modern) firearms why is the homicide rate in the us as the lowest rate it has been in centuries?

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-...Stylized-2.png

Source: http://thepublicintellectual.org/201...-crime-puzzle/

Yet we are willing to spend 10's of Billions of Dollars to enact laws that have been shown to be ineffectual.

While just accepting that is better than the cost emboldening the mostly conservative pro-gun crowd.

ElvisL1ves's home, with liberal gun laws, has a similar homicide rate (1.3 per 100,000) as the United Kingdom (1.2 per 100,000.)

But facts are unimportant?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 06:56 PM.
  #227  
Old 12-30-2012, 06:58 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
...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?...
It is unlikely that any discussion will be expending any valuable resources, save for air.

Last edited by elucidator; 12-30-2012 at 06:59 PM.
  #228  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:00 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
It is unlikely that any discussion will be expending any valuable resources, save for air.
How likely do you think there will be a discussion about mental health stigma and services now that the Feinstein and the President have decided to push forward with "gun control?"

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 07:01 PM.
  #229  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:02 PM
Stealth Potato Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
It is unlikely that any discussion will be expending any valuable resources, save for air.
The time and effort of our legislating bodies are resources. So is the political capital that would be burned in enacting an assault weapons ban, which would imperil the incumbency of many liberal politicians and increase the difficulty in regulating handguns.
  #230  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:02 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
...But the AMA was being harassing, did they also berate their patients about riding motorcycles or flying in general aviation or about how they drove to the doctors office?...
Uh, what?
  #231  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:09 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Uh, what?
The AMA added "how many guns are in the house" and many doctors would refuse service if patients refused to answer.

Many doctors also berated parents for having guns in the house etc...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/201025.shtml

But that is another thread.
  #232  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:19 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Potato View Post
The time and effort of our legislating bodies are resources. So is the political capital that would be burned in enacting an assault weapons ban, which would imperil the incumbency of many liberal politicians and increase the difficulty in regulating handguns.
Agreed, we should be having a full national discussion about regulating all firearms. Assault style weapons is a rat hole.

Note: I'm saying regulation not banning all firearms.
  #233  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:21 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Agreed, we should be having a full national discussion about regulating all firearms. Assault style weapons is a rat hole.

Note: I'm saying regulation not banning all firearms.
So, can you provide a cite where that reduced homicides in any significant amount?

Or do you just assume that it will?

Why can't we have a talk about mental health or some other subject which may help?

Why do we have to have a discussion about banning a physical object when the only effect those laws seem to have is to rally the conservative electorate?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 07:21 PM.
  #234  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:25 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Looking at handguns, there are two types of owners. Group A includes those that purchased their guns legally through dealers or private parties, and Group B those who own stolen guns purchased from other than reputable outlets.
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
  #235  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:28 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
The frustrating part of this conversation is that the desire to ban guns is more influenced by cultural biases than reality.
  #236  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:51 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
The AMA added "how many guns are in the house" and many doctors would refuse service if patients refused to answer.

Many doctors also berated parents for having guns in the house etc...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/201025.shtml

But that is another thread.
And utterly irrelevent. If the story had been broken by the Plumbers Union of Akron, Ohio, Local #114, the story is either true or it isn't. Of what possible significance is the fact that the story appears in the Journal of the AMA?
  #237  
Old 12-30-2012, 07:59 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
A fear of the actions of the AMA was the impetus for those Republicans shady political actions.

Your link to the AMA's story was not:

Quote:
Interesting article concerning the efforts of the "gun lobby" to stifle statistical research on the public health consequences of gun ownership.
It was a misguided effort to stop what they viewed as indoctrination and attempts at a private database of "firearms" by the AMA a known and publicly stated anti-gun organization.

It was not as you claimed, or inferred, an attempt to hide the risks of gun ownership.

It was also not the action of the "gun lobby" but of "pro-gun members of Congress".

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 08:01 PM.
  #238  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:05 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Also remember a large part of the reason the Republicans could do that in 1996 is due to the massive losses the D's had after the passage of the ineffective AWB in 1994.
  #239  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:06 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
If these weapons are so dangerous that they pose an existential threat to society, why weren't people demanding they be banned over half a century ago? What's different now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
They were, and they haven't stopped.
Give me at least one cite from, say, the 1950s that people were clamoring that handguns and semi-automatic rifles be banned; or admit you pulled that out of your ass.
  #240  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:10 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
So, can you provide a cite where that reduced homicides in any significant amount?

Or do you just assume that it will?

Why can't we have a talk about mental health or some other subject which may help?

Why do we have to have a discussion about banning a physical object when the only effect those laws seem to have is to rally the conservative electorate?
Prove a negative. Great! Not possible to cite where gun registrations would reduce homicides significantly since that is not the case in the US of A.

However, we could look at ALL other developed nations. Here is a nifty table that shows all deaths related to guns by country. Whaddya know, US has a pretty bad record for homicides. The worst by far of any developed country at 4.2 homicides (per 100k I think) versus the worst developed rate #2 in Canada at 1.6 and #3 the UK at 1.2.

Lessee, assuming the Wiki numbers are reasonably close, that shows homicide gun death in the US at 3.7 per 100k out of the total homicide rate at 4.2 per 100k.

You want to try explain away these numbers? (and I don't remember which poster used the UK as an example but the UK had 0.04 gun homicides out of 1.2 murders per 100k population)

(And sure, lets in parallel also have that mental health and other prevention conversations. It's not an either or proposition - both are needed. And I for one don't have an issue of giving the conservative electorate something to rally behind. History has proved them wrong an a number of significant issues like slavery, womens rights, abortion, etc.)
  #241  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:22 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Prove a negative. Great! Not possible to cite where gun registrations would reduce homicides significantly since that is not the case in the US of A.

However, we could look at ALL other developed nations. Here is a nifty table that shows all deaths related to guns by country. Whaddya know, US has a pretty bad record for homicides. The worst by far of any developed country at 4.2 homicides (per 100k I think) versus the worst developed rate #2 in Canada at 1.6 and #3 the UK at 1.2.

Lessee, assuming the Wiki numbers are reasonably close, that shows homicide gun death in the US at 3.7 per 100k out of the total homicide rate at 4.2 per 100k.
So you are saying that the fact that gun bans haven't worked anyplace in the world means that they will in the US because we are special? Look up thread and you will see links that prove it didn't do anything in Australia as an example.

Yet when you look at it per state is is similar to Europe in other ways.

E.G. My state has a rate similar to Finland and New England has a similar rate to the United Kingdom.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statist...ate-state.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
You want to try explain away these numbers? (and I don't remember which poster used the UK as an example but the UK had 0.04 gun homicides out of 1.2 murders per 100k population)
So why is their overall rate the same as New England where guns are common?

But sure if you pull rich homogenized countries the US rate looks bad but europe overall has a rate of 3.5 per 100,000 and that is pretty close to our national rate. Homicide rates are much higher in the South of the US just as it is in Eastern Europe.

Yet many of those "safe" European countries have liberal gun laws as do several of the richer US states.

So yes, without some evidence that the number of firearms owned by law abiding citizens means anything your claims are bunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post

(And sure, lets in parallel also have that mental health and other prevention conversations. It's not an either or proposition - both are needed. And I for one don't have an issue of giving the conservative electorate something to rally behind. History has proved them wrong an a number of significant issues like slavery, womens rights, abortion, etc.)
I personally don't want to waste time on moving forward with women's rights, gay rights, reproduction rights, universal healthcare etc..

Especially when all the data shows that your solution doesn't work at all.

So yes...as a liberal I ask you for the data before you toss all of my other causes in front of the bus.

Why are you so willing to throw everything away on a single issue?

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 08:24 PM.
  #242  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:25 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Give me at least one cite from, say, the 1950s that people were clamoring that handguns and semi-automatic rifles be banned; or admit you pulled that out of your ass.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

Quote:
When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns.
Many more people wanted to ban handguns in the 1950s.
  #243  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:30 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
However, we could look at ALL other developed nations. Here is a nifty table that shows all deaths related to guns by country. Whaddya know, US has a pretty bad record for homicides. The worst by far of any developed country at 4.2 homicides (per 100k I think) versus the worst developed rate #2 in Canada at 1.6 and #3 the UK at 1.2.
Cool. Let's do that.

Iowa homicide rate: 1.3. Concealed Carry: shall-issue. Gun ownership rate: 43%

Minnesota: 1.5. Concealed Carry: shall-issue. Gun ownership rate: 42%

New Hampshire: 0.9. Concealed Carry: shall-issue. Gun ownership rate: 30%

Vermont: 1.3. Almost no gun regulations - carry all you want. Gun ownership rate: 42%

So - European-like (or less) rates. High gun ownership rate. Relaxed gun regulations. How do you explain it?
  #244  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:56 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx



Many more people wanted to ban handguns in the 1950s.
Point conceded; although the gallup poll simply asked as an ideal whether people thought handguns should be banned or not. Were many people actively lobbying for such bans?
  #245  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:06 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,964
Instead of cherry picking, could you at least use some data that seems reasonable?

Like citing all of Europe instead of developed nations. IMHO that's a pure bullshit call. There is a HUGE disparity between the two. Or do you think its unfair to compared developed nations with developed nations? I think that's a reasonable comparison but hey I'm open to trying to understand your yardstick. I mean if you include Somalia, the US looks pretty good.

Last time I checked, we are a country. I think that an average country rate makes a lot more sense than cherry picking states. I mean I could throw out Louisiana at 10.13. But Texas (shall issue concealed carry) might be more fair since that is also a "gun culture" state with 3.93. And why is California 4.82?

And I bet you can very easily and quickly pull up stats showing that gun related homicide (and homicide in general) in the US correlates with population density. And since all of the States you've cited are relatively low population densities, then the gun regulation are plausibly a coincidence and not a result.

And Rat Avatar, I am not a zealot nor crusader for firearm regulation. Shit, I'm not trying to ban guns, but I sure as shit think we need more regulations on 'em. Preventing straw purchases seems common sense to me. Doesn't straw purchase prevention align with being a responsible gun owner? What crucial piece of responsible am I missing here?

Last edited by China Guy; 12-30-2012 at 09:08 PM.
  #246  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:10 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
...It was a misguided effort to stop what they viewed as indoctrination and attempts at a private database of "firearms" by the AMA a known and publicly stated anti-gun organization....
Ah. So the Elders of the AMA had a two fold plot: first, to indoctrinate the public, and second, to amass a database of "firearms" (not sure why the scare quotes are there, but moving right along...)

Which kinda begs the question of when the Centers for Disease Control became a wholly owned subsidiary of the AMA. The CDC is featured quite prominently in the article. Unless I missed it, the AMA is not even mentioned. Nor, as best I can tell, is there any mention of a database of "firearms".

Have we some solid reason to believe that what they say is "research" is actually "indoctrination"? Or that they ever intended to seek data for a database other than the specific focus of their research?

Are you offering the conspiracy theory that had the CDC conducted research and found that gun ownership was totally beneficial, from a public health standpoint, they would have suppressed the results?

Or that they already had a real good idea what they'd find, but wanted to research it anyway so they could indoctrinate the public with facts. Mislead them with science.

Or what, exactly?

My preliminary opinion here is that the "gun lobby" and/or "pro-gun Congressman" (I hardly care which, as they are interchangeable...) stifled the research by a respected research institution. I leap nimbly to the follow up that they did it because they were pretty sure they wouldn't like the results. Which strongly suggests that they know what those results would be.

My opinion here is somewhat interpretive, yes, but based on what facts we have to hand. If it turns out that JAMA is lying its editorial ass off, I am prepared to revise. On that point, I have the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces.
  #247  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:18 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10,964
You've piqued my interest. Not sure if this is accurate, but probably close enough for a random Search. http://texaslesstraveled.com/gunrights.htm

"In fact, there are more gun owners in Texas than other state in the Union. It is estimated that Texans own around 51 million firearms. That's more firearms than owned by the 300 million people that make up the 15 nations of the European Union. In fact, America is the number one gun-owning nation in the world. But Texans possess nearly 20% of all the guns in America. (The U.S. gun count is estimated around 240 million)."

"State statistics show that 147,819 Texans have permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons. And that number is growing. Texans have been permitted to carry concealed weapons since January 1996, so long as they are licensed by the state Department of Public Safety."

Yet Texas has 3.93 gun related homicides per 100k population. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this compared with say Vermont?
  #248  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:22 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Yet Texas has 3.93 gun related homicides per 100k population. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this compared with say Vermont?
That they get a lot of leakage from 10.13 Louisiana, and need their guns for defense?
  #249  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:32 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Instead of cherry picking, could you at least use some data that seems reasonable?

Like citing all of Europe instead of developed nations. IMHO that's a pure bullshit call. There is a HUGE disparity between the two. Or do you think its unfair to compared developed nations with developed nations? I think that's a reasonable comparison but hey I'm open to trying to understand your yardstick.

Last time I checked, we are a country. I think that an average country rate makes a lot more sense than cherry picking states. I mean I could throw out Louisiana at 10.13. But Texas (shall issue concealed carry) might be more fair since that is also a "gun culture" state with 3.93. And why is California 4.82?

And I bet you can very easily and quickly pull up stats showing that gun related homicide (and homicide in general) in the US correlates with population density. And since all of the States you've cited are relatively low population densities, then the gun regulation are plausibly a coincidence and not a result.

And Rat Avatar, I am not a zealot nor crusader for firearm regulation. Shit, I'm not trying to ban guns, but I sure as shit think we need more regulations on 'em. Preventing straw purchases seems common sense to me. Doesn't straw purchase prevention align with being a responsible gun owner? What crucial piece of responsible am I missing here?
We are a collection of states, My state has a similar land area, population, larger GDP than Finland.

But if guns are the root of the poblem as you claim why ignore the diffrence between the states. The only reason I see is they don't fit your claim that the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is related at all to the homicide rate.

Note that Alaska has a large homocide rate and has very low population density, Louisiana has the highest murder rate but is in the middle of the country in population rate.

I am not claiming there is no relation to population density and violent crime but unless you have evidence to show it is linked I think that is just a WAG.

BTW the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro area is more dense than New Orleans metropolitan area but has a tiny amount of homocides and much more liberal gun laws.

But you are the one who want to pass laws...are you just unable to find any information that shows that it does anything positive.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 09:32 PM.
  #250  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:35 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Yet Texas has 3.93 gun related homicides per 100k population. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from this compared with say Vermont?
That Maybe they are a border state with a country that supplies a large amount of the rest of the countries drugs thus ther is a large underground economy which no lawful dispute mitigation methods?

Seeing as the murder rate for the South is 5.5 per 100,000 they are actually safer than their neighbors.

Last edited by rat avatar; 12-30-2012 at 09:35 PM.
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 08:53 AM.

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