View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 6th, 2016, 3:58 pm



Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
 Gun Control 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9894
Location: Dallas
Post Gun Control
hot topic button that I've been pretty neutral on over the years. M2K has made some very good arguments that have swayed me to supporting gun ownership but honestly I think it is time to readdress the issue with all these mass shootings.

I can't understand why we allow people to buy these assault, body armor and thousands of rounds of ammo?

I've heard the arguments for self defense, but how many of these situations are ever stopped by a civilian pulling out a gun and taking out the gun man?

I get the right to bear arms - back in 1776, but 240 years later I think it is time to reconsider what that means.

Hunting is one thing, but what are you going to hunt with an assault riffle. Self defense is one thing, but does that require an assault riffle.

I haven't done any research but it seems logical to start implementing some limits when crazy people can legally get there hands on such deadly firearms. I'm not saying get rid of small firearms or hunting rifles, but I'd like to hear arguments for and against assault rifles...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 4th, 2015, 10:55 am
Profile WWW
QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3084
Post Re: Gun Control
I like guns, **** off.

(Seriously -- this is the primary reason)


December 4th, 2015, 11:16 am
Profile
3rd Round Selection
User avatar

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 9:18 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Where I lay my head is home
Post Re: Gun Control
I'm with you. It's one thing to own a handgun, but assault rifles, body armor and things like that have no place in civilian life. But, the pro-gun people won't let that happen, and I can see their side too.

So, how about a compromise, chip all legal guns and track them regularly. We can track cell phones, delivery trucks and even refrigerators ffs, I'm sure tracking guns would be very doable. This makes it easy to identify threats. And anyone caught with an unchipped gun goes away, and will be ineligible to own guns in the future.


December 4th, 2015, 11:30 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12488
Post Re: Gun Control
It would be nice if they would actually research what causes these incidents, then maybe we can work towards some sort of viable solution.


_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 4th, 2015, 12:19 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3220
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo wrote:
hot topic button that I've been pretty neutral on over the years. M2K has made some very good arguments that have swayed me to supporting gun ownership but honestly I think it is time to readdress the issue with all these mass shootings.

I can't understand why we allow people to buy these assault, body armor and thousands of rounds of ammo?

I've heard the arguments for self defense, but how many of these situations are ever stopped by a civilian pulling out a gun and taking out the gun man?

I get the right to bear arms - back in 1776, but 240 years later I think it is time to reconsider what that means.

Hunting is one thing, but what are you going to hunt with an assault riffle. Self defense is one thing, but does that require an assault riffle.

I haven't done any research but it seems logical to start implementing some limits when crazy people can legally get there hands on such deadly firearms. I'm not saying get rid of small firearms or hunting rifles, but I'd like to hear arguments for and against assault rifles...


I'll just go point by point.

1 - "Assault" weapons are responsible for fewer deaths than hammers per year. But the way the media sounds off about them, you'd think they were responsible for all 12k.

Body armor.. these two weren't wearing body armor. The last time body armor actually made a difference was the hollywood shootout when police didn't have access to the necessary ammo. This has changed.

Ammo. Doesn't matter the amount of rounds, since you still have to pull the trigger every time. Have people in place to stop it early, and they won't go through that many rounds. All those rounds didn't help these two since there was so much left over when they were engaged. They only needed 100 rounds to accomplish what they did.

2. By the department of Justice's own estimates, right around 100k times a year. Various surveys range much higher because it's a tough thing for a law enforcement agency to actually survey. 91% of defensive gun use doesn't involve a shot being fired, so how do you verify a prevented crime if there's no wounded suspect and he's never caught. They can only verify those they catch, so you can see where the methodology is flawed. 100k vs 12k alone shows the benefits outweigh the downside. Especially since we know 75% of the gun deaths are related to gang activity. So that leave 3k murdered a year by those not in gangs. Kinda makes the argument mute doesn't it?

3. No. The right to self defense has gotten more important, not less.

4. "Assault" rifle is no different than any other semi-automatic weapon. Difference is it's black and looks scary. Now exchange rifle and weapon for person. See how inflaming the statement sounds now?

Mass shootings account for about 1% of shooting deaths. The anti-gun crowd just loves to make the minority stats much bigger than they are by focusing on them. From listening or watching the news every day, you'd think gun deaths were rising every year. Except that they've been lowering every year. Right now we're about 300 less from last year, so unless Chicago has another outbreak, it will be lower again.

And I'm not against someone starting the conversation. You admit you haven't done any research so you back up my claim about how the media makes it sound like a bigger problem. If there weren't guns, violent crime would be worse. In the USA, you have a 1/250 chance of being a victim of a violent crime. Uk has no guns and you have a 1/100 chance. Removing firearms doesn't reduce crime, it just makes you less likely to be able to defend yourself.

And the reason the mentally troubled can get them occasionally is because the background checks can't bypass HIPPA laws. They know it and refuse to change it without adding a bunch of other stuff that has zero effect on reducing crime. The few states like Connecticut, that get around HIPPA and get people on the background check, do a better job. That kid was denied a gun, but the worst parenting in the world leads to a glass case with a mentally ill child in the house. Most States have laws on the books that require a locked/metal case if there are children in the house.

There's definitely things we can do to fix things. The problem is most of what's proposed only effects the lawful owners and wouldn't change or stop any of the previous events.


December 4th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3220
Post Re: Gun Control
TheRealWags wrote:
It would be nice if they would actually research what causes these incidents, then maybe we can work towards some sort of viable solution.



While it states the Dickey law came about because of that one report, it was more linked the Kleck's paper, since he was a liberal and found that defensive gun usage killed the arguments of most other claims that were being thrown out there.

And like the article says, there are plenty of people willing and able to do the research, the CDC is prevented. Because associating gun violence with disease is already giving a biased perspective no matter what the reports would say.

I think the real disease is knowing the drug war is making gangs impossible to remove while they're responsible for the majority of deaths and just letting it continue. Oh wait, the last background check wanted to ban anyone who ever used a class-3 (including marijuana) from ever owning one, so they have good reason to let it continue...


December 4th, 2015, 12:36 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3309
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Gun Control
DayDreamer wrote:
I'm with you. It's one thing to own a handgun, but assault rifles, body armor and things like that have no place in civilian life. But, the pro-gun people won't let that happen, and I can see their side too.

So, how about a compromise, chip all legal guns and track them regularly. We can track cell phones, delivery trucks and even refrigerators ffs, I'm sure tracking guns would be very doable. This makes it easy to identify threats. And anyone caught with an unchipped gun goes away, and will be ineligible to own guns in the future.

One of my friends posted this on facebook, and I think it makes a lot of sense:

50 years ago, Unsafe at Any Speed led to a seminal change in auto safety. No one took away everyone's cars. We made some rules to keep them from killing so many damn people.
Let's make some damn RULES people.

Obviously it's more complex being a constitutional issue and the fact that there are already a lot of gun laws. But to me, at a conceptual level, if you make something illegal, there generally will be less of it. So if certain types of guns (assault rifles, magazines over a certain capacity, etc.) are not legal to be sold to the public, manufacturers will make less of them, and the quantity of them on the market will decrease over time. Thus making it more difficult for anyone, law abiding or not, to get them, which will in turn reduce the number of these types of shootings that can occur. Same goes for body armor and the like.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


December 4th, 2015, 12:37 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12488
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
It would be nice if they would actually research what causes these incidents, then maybe we can work towards some sort of viable solution.



While it states the Dickey law came about because of that one report, it was more linked the Kleck's paper, since he was a liberal and found that defensive gun usage killed the arguments of most other claims that were being thrown out there.

And like the article says, there are plenty of people willing and able to do the research, the CDC is prevented. Because associating gun violence with disease is already giving a biased perspective no matter what the reports would say.

I think the real disease is knowing the drug war is making gangs impossible to remove while they're responsible for the majority of deaths and just letting it continue. Oh wait, the last background check wanted to ban anyone who ever used a class-3 (including marijuana) from ever owning one, so they have good reason to let it continue...
The point I got from the article is that there is currently little to no funding for the research; THAT is what needs to change. I don't care what dept, center, etc does the research, as long as its scientific get it done.

If the CDC can study why can't they study firearm safety? Neither is related to 'disease' but only 1 is consistently used as a political football.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 4th, 2015, 12:58 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3220
Post Re: Gun Control
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
DayDreamer wrote:
I'm with you. It's one thing to own a handgun, but assault rifles, body armor and things like that have no place in civilian life. But, the pro-gun people won't let that happen, and I can see their side too.

So, how about a compromise, chip all legal guns and track them regularly. We can track cell phones, delivery trucks and even refrigerators ffs, I'm sure tracking guns would be very doable. This makes it easy to identify threats. And anyone caught with an unchipped gun goes away, and will be ineligible to own guns in the future.

One of my friends posted this on facebook, and I think it makes a lot of sense:

50 years ago, Unsafe at Any Speed led to a seminal change in auto safety. No one took away everyone's cars. We made some rules to keep them from killing so many damn people.
Let's make some damn RULES people.

Obviously it's more complex being a constitutional issue and the fact that there are already a lot of gun laws. But to me, at a conceptual level, if you make something illegal, there generally will be less of it. So if certain types of guns (assault rifles, magazines over a certain capacity, etc.) are not legal to be sold to the public, manufacturers will make less of them, and the quantity of them on the market will decrease over time. Thus making it more difficult for anyone, law abiding or not, to get them, which will in turn reduce the number of these types of shootings that can occur. Same goes for body armor and the like.


It makes sense if you don't really look at what's going on.

It's illegal to shoot anyone... already a crime, they didn't care. Did that law deter them?
Gangs are illegal. Does that make them disappear?
Assault rifle isn't a type. It's a typical semi-automatic rifle that has been around since the 1800's. It LOOKS different that's all. Do you think changing the way a gun looks will make someone less likely to use it? OMG i'm not ever killing again because they only have pink guns...
You know how long it takes to change a clip? less than 2 seconds. Someone will just carry more clips. Again, not a deterrent.
Every single gun crime is a...crime.

You want to make an effective change, waive the hippa law for background checks. Extend the current NICS background checks to every state instead of just the majority and voila, you'd have a meaningful change. But that's not taking away anything, so they won't have it. There's an agenda and they will continue to make things look worse than it is until people start believing it all, and then take it all away. That's the goal. Why else would you target a type of firearm that's used less than hammers to kill you.


December 4th, 2015, 12:59 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3220
Post Re: Gun Control
TheRealWags wrote:
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
It would be nice if they would actually research what causes these incidents, then maybe we can work towards some sort of viable solution.



While it states the Dickey law came about because of that one report, it was more linked the Kleck's paper, since he was a liberal and found that defensive gun usage killed the arguments of most other claims that were being thrown out there.

And like the article says, there are plenty of people willing and able to do the research, the CDC is prevented. Because associating gun violence with disease is already giving a biased perspective no matter what the reports would say.

I think the real disease is knowing the drug war is making gangs impossible to remove while they're responsible for the majority of deaths and just letting it continue. Oh wait, the last background check wanted to ban anyone who ever used a class-3 (including marijuana) from ever owning one, so they have good reason to let it continue...
The point I got from the article is that there is currently little to no funding for the research; THAT is what needs to change. I don't care what dept, center, etc does the research, as long as its scientific get it done.

If the CDC can study why can't they study firearm safety? Neither is related to 'disease' but only 1 is consistently used as a political football.


There's nothing stopping them from putting Grant money out there. But they can't control public institutions like they can government agencies. It doesn't take long to connect the dots. Just look at the fiasco with NOAA right now about altering past data.


December 4th, 2015, 1:00 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12488
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
It would be nice if they would actually research what causes these incidents, then maybe we can work towards some sort of viable solution.



While it states the Dickey law came about because of that one report, it was more linked the Kleck's paper, since he was a liberal and found that defensive gun usage killed the arguments of most other claims that were being thrown out there.

And like the article says, there are plenty of people willing and able to do the research, the CDC is prevented. Because associating gun violence with disease is already giving a biased perspective no matter what the reports would say.

I think the real disease is knowing the drug war is making gangs impossible to remove while they're responsible for the majority of deaths and just letting it continue. Oh wait, the last background check wanted to ban anyone who ever used a class-3 (including marijuana) from ever owning one, so they have good reason to let it continue...
The point I got from the article is that there is currently little to no funding for the research; THAT is what needs to change. I don't care what dept, center, etc does the research, as long as its scientific get it done.

If the CDC can study why can't they study firearm safety? Neither is related to 'disease' but only 1 is consistently used as a political football.


There's nothing stopping them from putting Grant money out there. But they can't control public institutions like they can government agencies. It doesn't take long to connect the dots. Just look at the fiasco with NOAA right now about altering past data.
Again, please answer why it is ok for the CDC to study motor vehicle safety and not firearm safety? Perhaps I'm missing something but neither is related to a disease or illness, so why not uproar about the MV studies? Unless of course it has to do with politics....

EDIT: Also why no uproar over and
Hell, one might even think firearm safety could fall under violence prevention.... ](*,)

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 4th, 2015, 1:02 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3084
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
And I'm not against someone starting the conversation. You admit you haven't done any research so you back up my claim about how the media makes it sound like a bigger problem. If there weren't guns, violent crime would be worse. In the USA, you have a 1/250 chance of being a victim of a violent crime. Uk has no guns and you have a 1/100 chance. Removing firearms doesn't reduce crime, it just makes you less likely to be able to defend yourself.


This isn't really true:

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Basically it comes down to how violent crime is defined in each country, how often crimes are reported, etc.

I'm a gun owner myself. I shoot recreationally and I support gun ownership, but most of the guns nuts are just that -- nuts.


December 4th, 2015, 1:07 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3220
Post Re: Gun Control
TheRealWags wrote:
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
njroar wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
It would be nice if they would actually research what causes these incidents, then maybe we can work towards some sort of viable solution.



While it states the Dickey law came about because of that one report, it was more linked the Kleck's paper, since he was a liberal and found that defensive gun usage killed the arguments of most other claims that were being thrown out there.

And like the article says, there are plenty of people willing and able to do the research, the CDC is prevented. Because associating gun violence with disease is already giving a biased perspective no matter what the reports would say.

I think the real disease is knowing the drug war is making gangs impossible to remove while they're responsible for the majority of deaths and just letting it continue. Oh wait, the last background check wanted to ban anyone who ever used a class-3 (including marijuana) from ever owning one, so they have good reason to let it continue...
The point I got from the article is that there is currently little to no funding for the research; THAT is what needs to change. I don't care what dept, center, etc does the research, as long as its scientific get it done.

If the CDC can study why can't they study firearm safety? Neither is related to 'disease' but only 1 is consistently used as a political football.


There's nothing stopping them from putting Grant money out there. But they can't control public institutions like they can government agencies. It doesn't take long to connect the dots. Just look at the fiasco with NOAA right now about altering past data.
Again, please answer why it is ok for the CDC to study motor vehicle safety and not firearm safety? Perhaps I'm missing something but neither is related to a disease or illness, so why not uproar about the MV studies? Unless of course it has to do with politics....


MV studies shouldn't be under their scope at all. This is the problem with zero sum budgeting. If they don't spend all their budget, it gets reduced. So they have to keep busy. And the only people making an uproar about this are those that know the CDC will give them a report they can agree with. No one has ever complained about the CDC thing until now. I don't care if the CDC did a report. I've done enough research on it to see the obvious myths and false stats that are constantly used, so it would just be easy to debunk and throw out. To the anti-gun crowd, the more they repeat the same falsehoods, they believe more will believe it. Ask someone who's anti-gun why they're making an uproar. I'd love to hear it too.


December 4th, 2015, 1:09 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3220
Post Re: Gun Control
Blueskies wrote:
njroar wrote:
And I'm not against someone starting the conversation. You admit you haven't done any research so you back up my claim about how the media makes it sound like a bigger problem. If there weren't guns, violent crime would be worse. In the USA, you have a 1/250 chance of being a victim of a violent crime. Uk has no guns and you have a 1/100 chance. Removing firearms doesn't reduce crime, it just makes you less likely to be able to defend yourself.


This isn't really true:

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Basically it comes down to how violent crime is defined in each country, how often crimes are reported, etc.

I'm a gun owner myself. I shoot recreationally and I support gun ownership, but most of the guns nuts are just that -- nuts.


Thanks for the link. That's a good summary and explains a lot that you can't see by just looking at the data. I stand corrected.

I still think it's a delusional view that removing guns would suddenly make violence disappear. Human nature has involved killing eons prior to the first gun showing up on the scene.


December 4th, 2015, 1:19 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3084
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
njroar wrote:
And I'm not against someone starting the conversation. You admit you haven't done any research so you back up my claim about how the media makes it sound like a bigger problem. If there weren't guns, violent crime would be worse. In the USA, you have a 1/250 chance of being a victim of a violent crime. Uk has no guns and you have a 1/100 chance. Removing firearms doesn't reduce crime, it just makes you less likely to be able to defend yourself.


This isn't really true:

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Basically it comes down to how violent crime is defined in each country, how often crimes are reported, etc.

I'm a gun owner myself. I shoot recreationally and I support gun ownership, but most of the guns nuts are just that -- nuts.


Thanks for the link. That's a good summary and explains a lot that you can't see by just looking at the data. I stand corrected.

I still think it's a delusional view that removing guns would suddenly make violence disappear. Human nature has involved killing eons prior to the first gun showing up on the scene.


I think we could agree though, that if you could somehow get rid of every gun in the US, there would be fewer deaths.

That's not possible, though -- there are simply too many. Like rounding up every single illegal and deporting them all -- not going to happen.

Still, I think we could come up with some tweaks that would make the situation just a little bit better. Unfortunately, the gun nuts won't even have that conversation.

And no, training and requiring 25 year old women (kindergarten teachers) that make $30,000 a year to use a handgun to defend their students isn't a reasonable solution.


December 4th, 2015, 1:37 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 98 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.