View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 14th, 2018, 3:11 am



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

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10068
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gun Control
I don't see the point in comparing guns to hammers or car deaths, unless you are talking about accidental gun deaths. There is a big difference in an accident and purpose. We all know the gun lobby is extremely strong in the US, so many statistics are skewed and need to be dug into.

As for violent crimes, as stated it comes down to definition. The US has a very narrow definition of a violent crime while the UK has a very broad definition. In 2011 the UK had 59 gun related homicides - in the US the number was above 8,500.

I do think we do have to change the background laws. I don't care if other laws, like , HIPPA need to be circumvented - a small price to pay and one you must pay if you want a gun.

I also think there is some simplification of "type" of gun here but since we have already limited "automatic" weapons I think there is some room for more discussion here also. My specific question is around magazines and what limits should be set there? If you are hunting for "sport", how many rounds do you need to be able to fire before reloading? Obviously the more rounds someone can fire off in a given amount of time comes into play in these mass shootings.

njroar wrote:
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.


Nobody is making the claim that removing guns would make violence disappear. But I think that is also delusional to think that it is a far fight between those with semi-automatic weapons and those with no weapons at all. We need to level the playing field which means one of two things 1) giving everyone weapons (total chaos) or 2) putting further restrictions on a) who gets access to weapons and b) the types of weapons they have access to. To me, therein lies the discussion points.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 4th, 2015, 1:42 pm
Profile WWW
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3283
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo wrote:
I don't see the point in comparing guns to hammers or car deaths, unless you are talking about accidental gun deaths. There is a big difference in an accident and purpose. We all know the gun lobby is extremely strong in the US, so many statistics are skewed and need to be dug into.

As for violent crimes, as stated it comes down to definition. The US has a very narrow definition of a violent crime while the UK has a very broad definition. In 2011 the UK had 59 gun related homicides - in the US the number was above 8,500.

I do think we do have to change the background laws. I don't care if other laws, like , HIPPA need to be circumvented - a small price to pay and one you must pay if you want a gun.

I also think there is some simplification of "type" of gun here but since we have already limited "automatic" weapons I think there is some room for more discussion here also. My specific question is around magazines and what limits should be set there? If you are hunting for "sport", how many rounds do you need to be able to fire before reloading? Obviously the more rounds someone can fire off in a given amount of time comes into play in these mass shootings.

njroar wrote:
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.


Nobody is making the claim that removing guns would make violence disappear. But I think that is also delusional to think that it is a far fight between those with semi-automatic weapons and those with no weapons at all. We need to level the playing field which means one of two things 1) giving everyone weapons (total chaos) or 2) putting further restrictions on a) who gets access to weapons and b) the types of weapons they have access to. To me, therein lies the discussion points.


Hammers are used to murder at a higher rate than Assault rifles. That's why I'm using the comparison. In 2011, 323 people were killed with an assault rifle, 496 with a hammer or club. Twice as many are killed by fists as are by rifles. And yes, they include all rifles together, so no idea if it's a larger or smaller share of the number, but overall it's still low.

I wouldn't throw in accidental deaths to misdirect. I never mentioned automobiles. I kept it to homicide. I don't include suicide, since you can only speculate if someone would kill themselves another way if they really want to end it. And accidental gun deaths are dominated by police officers, so again, not relevant to what we were discussing.


December 4th, 2015, 1:52 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3126
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I don't see the point in comparing guns to hammers or car deaths, unless you are talking about accidental gun deaths. There is a big difference in an accident and purpose. We all know the gun lobby is extremely strong in the US, so many statistics are skewed and need to be dug into.

As for violent crimes, as stated it comes down to definition. The US has a very narrow definition of a violent crime while the UK has a very broad definition. In 2011 the UK had 59 gun related homicides - in the US the number was above 8,500.

I do think we do have to change the background laws. I don't care if other laws, like , HIPPA need to be circumvented - a small price to pay and one you must pay if you want a gun.

I also think there is some simplification of "type" of gun here but since we have already limited "automatic" weapons I think there is some room for more discussion here also. My specific question is around magazines and what limits should be set there? If you are hunting for "sport", how many rounds do you need to be able to fire before reloading? Obviously the more rounds someone can fire off in a given amount of time comes into play in these mass shootings.

njroar wrote:
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.


Nobody is making the claim that removing guns would make violence disappear. But I think that is also delusional to think that it is a far fight between those with semi-automatic weapons and those with no weapons at all. We need to level the playing field which means one of two things 1) giving everyone weapons (total chaos) or 2) putting further restrictions on a) who gets access to weapons and b) the types of weapons they have access to. To me, therein lies the discussion points.


Hammers are used to murder at a higher rate than Assault rifles. That's why I'm using the comparison. In 2011, 323 people were killed with an assault rifle, 496 with a hammer or club. Twice as many are killed by fists as are by rifles. And yes, they include all rifles together, so no idea if it's a larger or smaller share of the number, but overall it's still low.

I wouldn't throw in accidental deaths to misdirect. I never mentioned automobiles. I kept it to homicide. I don't include suicide, since you can only speculate if someone would kill themselves another way if they really want to end it. And accidental gun deaths are dominated by police officers, so again, not relevant to what we were discussing.


Again, not really:

http://fusion.net/story/3991/no-hammers ... than-guns/

This issue is so politically charged that it's hard to trust any statistical claim from either side.


December 4th, 2015, 2:02 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10068
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gun Control
Hammer time!

I pointed out that in 2011 over 8,500 people were killed by guns, so lets keep that in mind when compared to hammers. If you really want to boil it down, almost 70% of all murders in 2011 were committed by guns - they are the weapon of choice for murderers.

Put this another way, if it is you vs someone else and there is a gun and a hammer - which one do you want? Common sense has to come into play.

If you compare the US to other "high income" countries, our homicide rate is about 7 times the other countries and about 20 time higher when it comes to firearm homicide rates. I haven't done the research to find out how our hammer homicide rate compares however...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 4th, 2015, 2:03 pm
Profile WWW
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3283
Post Re: Gun Control
Blueskies wrote:
njroar wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I don't see the point in comparing guns to hammers or car deaths, unless you are talking about accidental gun deaths. There is a big difference in an accident and purpose. We all know the gun lobby is extremely strong in the US, so many statistics are skewed and need to be dug into.

As for violent crimes, as stated it comes down to definition. The US has a very narrow definition of a violent crime while the UK has a very broad definition. In 2011 the UK had 59 gun related homicides - in the US the number was above 8,500.

I do think we do have to change the background laws. I don't care if other laws, like , HIPPA need to be circumvented - a small price to pay and one you must pay if you want a gun.

I also think there is some simplification of "type" of gun here but since we have already limited "automatic" weapons I think there is some room for more discussion here also. My specific question is around magazines and what limits should be set there? If you are hunting for "sport", how many rounds do you need to be able to fire before reloading? Obviously the more rounds someone can fire off in a given amount of time comes into play in these mass shootings.

njroar wrote:
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.


Nobody is making the claim that removing guns would make violence disappear. But I think that is also delusional to think that it is a far fight between those with semi-automatic weapons and those with no weapons at all. We need to level the playing field which means one of two things 1) giving everyone weapons (total chaos) or 2) putting further restrictions on a) who gets access to weapons and b) the types of weapons they have access to. To me, therein lies the discussion points.


Hammers are used to murder at a higher rate than Assault rifles. That's why I'm using the comparison. In 2011, 323 people were killed with an assault rifle, 496 with a hammer or club. Twice as many are killed by fists as are by rifles. And yes, they include all rifles together, so no idea if it's a larger or smaller share of the number, but overall it's still low.

I wouldn't throw in accidental deaths to misdirect. I never mentioned automobiles. I kept it to homicide. I don't include suicide, since you can only speculate if someone would kill themselves another way if they really want to end it. And accidental gun deaths are dominated by police officers, so again, not relevant to what we were discussing.


Again, not really:

http://fusion.net/story/3991/no-hammers ... than-guns/

This issue is so politically charged that it's hard to trust any statistical claim from either side.


Did you even read your own article or only read the title? It still says exactly what I said... Hammers (blunt instruments in general) used to kill more than assault rifles were used. He even says so. But then he tries to say that more people are killed with guns, which isn't what I or anyone was saying. Of course more people are killed with guns. But when politicians argue gun control, they focus on assault rifles in particular. I specifically mentioned assault rifles because Pablo brought them up as if they were a big part of the problem. And the media makes it seem like they are.

323 out of 8k is a minimum. Meaning 0.04% of gun deaths are because of assault rifles. If that's the target, you're not going to make a dent in gun deaths. .

If everyone focused on hanguns, then you'd have a statistically sounder argument. Shotguns only account for 0.03%, so 99.93% would make a more obvious target, no?


December 4th, 2015, 2:30 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3126
Post Re: Gun Control
njroar wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
njroar wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I don't see the point in comparing guns to hammers or car deaths, unless you are talking about accidental gun deaths. There is a big difference in an accident and purpose. We all know the gun lobby is extremely strong in the US, so many statistics are skewed and need to be dug into.

As for violent crimes, as stated it comes down to definition. The US has a very narrow definition of a violent crime while the UK has a very broad definition. In 2011 the UK had 59 gun related homicides - in the US the number was above 8,500.

I do think we do have to change the background laws. I don't care if other laws, like , HIPPA need to be circumvented - a small price to pay and one you must pay if you want a gun.

I also think there is some simplification of "type" of gun here but since we have already limited "automatic" weapons I think there is some room for more discussion here also. My specific question is around magazines and what limits should be set there? If you are hunting for "sport", how many rounds do you need to be able to fire before reloading? Obviously the more rounds someone can fire off in a given amount of time comes into play in these mass shootings.

njroar wrote:
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.


Nobody is making the claim that removing guns would make violence disappear. But I think that is also delusional to think that it is a far fight between those with semi-automatic weapons and those with no weapons at all. We need to level the playing field which means one of two things 1) giving everyone weapons (total chaos) or 2) putting further restrictions on a) who gets access to weapons and b) the types of weapons they have access to. To me, therein lies the discussion points.


Hammers are used to murder at a higher rate than Assault rifles. That's why I'm using the comparison. In 2011, 323 people were killed with an assault rifle, 496 with a hammer or club. Twice as many are killed by fists as are by rifles. And yes, they include all rifles together, so no idea if it's a larger or smaller share of the number, but overall it's still low.

I wouldn't throw in accidental deaths to misdirect. I never mentioned automobiles. I kept it to homicide. I don't include suicide, since you can only speculate if someone would kill themselves another way if they really want to end it. And accidental gun deaths are dominated by police officers, so again, not relevant to what we were discussing.


Again, not really:

http://fusion.net/story/3991/no-hammers ... than-guns/

This issue is so politically charged that it's hard to trust any statistical claim from either side.


Did you even read your own article or only read the title? It still says exactly what I said... Hammers (blunt instruments in general) used to kill more than assault rifles were used. He even says so. But then he tries to say that more people are killed with guns, which isn't what I or anyone was saying. Of course more people are killed with guns. But when politicians argue gun control, they focus on assault rifles in particular. I specifically mentioned assault rifles because Pablo brought them up as if they were a big part of the problem. And the media makes it seem like they are.

323 out of 8k is a minimum. Meaning 0.04% of gun deaths are because of assault rifles. If that's the target, you're not going to make a dent in gun deaths. .

If everyone focused on hanguns, then you'd have a statistically sounder argument. Shotguns only account for 0.03%, so 99.93% would make a more obvious target, no?


The FBI doesn't break down the number of people killed by hammers. It just lists "blunt objects" which could be all manner of things. And more people are killed with shotguns+rifles than blunt objects.

I agree with you, though, that assault weapons isn't really the issue. It's handguns. They have no purpose other than killing other human beings (or yourself) and that's what people use them for.

For home invasion, they aren't even very effective. I would much rather have a shotgun to defend myself. Outside the home, the issue is trickier.


December 4th, 2015, 2:34 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3283
Post Re: Gun Control
I oops in my math, it's 4% and 3%, not 0.04 and 0.03.


December 4th, 2015, 2:38 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3283
Post Re: Gun Control
Blueskies wrote:
njroar wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
njroar wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I don't see the point in comparing guns to hammers or car deaths, unless you are talking about accidental gun deaths. There is a big difference in an accident and purpose. We all know the gun lobby is extremely strong in the US, so many statistics are skewed and need to be dug into.

As for violent crimes, as stated it comes down to definition. The US has a very narrow definition of a violent crime while the UK has a very broad definition. In 2011 the UK had 59 gun related homicides - in the US the number was above 8,500.

I do think we do have to change the background laws. I don't care if other laws, like , HIPPA need to be circumvented - a small price to pay and one you must pay if you want a gun.

I also think there is some simplification of "type" of gun here but since we have already limited "automatic" weapons I think there is some room for more discussion here also. My specific question is around magazines and what limits should be set there? If you are hunting for "sport", how many rounds do you need to be able to fire before reloading? Obviously the more rounds someone can fire off in a given amount of time comes into play in these mass shootings.

njroar wrote:
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.


Nobody is making the claim that removing guns would make violence disappear. But I think that is also delusional to think that it is a far fight between those with semi-automatic weapons and those with no weapons at all. We need to level the playing field which means one of two things 1) giving everyone weapons (total chaos) or 2) putting further restrictions on a) who gets access to weapons and b) the types of weapons they have access to. To me, therein lies the discussion points.


Hammers are used to murder at a higher rate than Assault rifles. That's why I'm using the comparison. In 2011, 323 people were killed with an assault rifle, 496 with a hammer or club. Twice as many are killed by fists as are by rifles. And yes, they include all rifles together, so no idea if it's a larger or smaller share of the number, but overall it's still low.

I wouldn't throw in accidental deaths to misdirect. I never mentioned automobiles. I kept it to homicide. I don't include suicide, since you can only speculate if someone would kill themselves another way if they really want to end it. And accidental gun deaths are dominated by police officers, so again, not relevant to what we were discussing.


Again, not really:

http://fusion.net/story/3991/no-hammers ... than-guns/

This issue is so politically charged that it's hard to trust any statistical claim from either side.


Did you even read your own article or only read the title? It still says exactly what I said... Hammers (blunt instruments in general) used to kill more than assault rifles were used. He even says so. But then he tries to say that more people are killed with guns, which isn't what I or anyone was saying. Of course more people are killed with guns. But when politicians argue gun control, they focus on assault rifles in particular. I specifically mentioned assault rifles because Pablo brought them up as if they were a big part of the problem. And the media makes it seem like they are.

323 out of 8k is a minimum. Meaning 0.04% of gun deaths are because of assault rifles. If that's the target, you're not going to make a dent in gun deaths. .

If everyone focused on hanguns, then you'd have a statistically sounder argument. Shotguns only account for 0.03%, so 99.93% would make a more obvious target, no?


The FBI doesn't break down the number of people killed by hammers. It just lists "blunt objects" which could be all manner of things. And more people are killed with shotguns+rifles than blunt objects.

I agree with you, though, that assault weapons isn't really the issue. It's handguns. They have no purpose other than killing other human beings (or yourself) and that's what people use them for.

For home invasion, they aren't even very effective. I would much rather have a shotgun to defend myself. Outside the home, the issue is trickier.


Yes, I said hammers and clubs. The FBI doesn't break down rifles either, so it's including bolt action, carriage fed and black powder. And yes, shotguns are completely different. The media doesn't ever say assault shotgun just because it looks different.


December 4th, 2015, 2:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 10068
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gun Control
The focus isn't just on assault rifles, its on background checks, etc. I did see you said "assault" rifles, but you failed to mention total gun deaths which is an important factor here. Hand guns need to be part of the discussion - all guns need to be part of the discussion and how people get there hands on them.

When almost 70% of murders are committed in a similar fashion (guns), we should probably take a look at them...

When I want to drive a car I have to go to the DMV, sit for hours, take a mental and physical test to prove I can operate a car and reviewed over the years. My car has to be inspected every year, I pay taxes to operate my car which also needs a plate. etc.

When you operate a vehicle which has a greater capability than most things to take a life there should be quite a process behind it. Is there a Department of of Guns or something else that is designed to monitor guns and gun owners? Should something like that be considered if we insist on continued gun ownership in this country with such a high propensity for violence?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 4th, 2015, 2:50 pm
Profile WWW
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3283
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo wrote:
The focus isn't just on assault rifles, its on background checks, etc. I did see you said "assault" rifles, but you failed to mention total gun deaths which is an important factor here. Hand guns need to be part of the discussion - all guns need to be part of the discussion and how people get there hands on them.

When almost 70% of murders are committed in a similar fashion (guns), we should probably take a look at them...

When I want to drive a car I have to go to the DMV, sit for hours, take a mental and physical test to prove I can operate a car and reviewed over the years. My car has to be inspected every year, I pay taxes to operate my car which also needs a plate. etc.

When you operate a vehicle which has a greater capability than most things to take a life there should be quite a process behind it. Is there a Department of of Guns or something else that is designed to monitor guns and gun owners? Should something like that be considered if we insist on continued gun ownership in this country with such a high propensity for violence?


I've stated the total number of gun deaths plenty of times. I even used the 12k number which is everything not a suicide, not the 8k number.

No, a registry isn't a good thing. Just publish who owns guns and you give people targets. Undefendable houses for theft of goods, gun owners houses for theft of firearms. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

I've already stated the problem with the last background check bill. We all agree that they need to expand and fix the HIPPA bs, but instead of doing that, they tried to push through banning anyone that has ever used a class-3 drug. They didn't include a HIPPA waiver. That's why it was shot down. The anti-gun crowd can say they respect the 2A and don't want to take all guns, but their actions always speak otherwise.

Ask the anti-gun crowd when they are going to push to eliminate all gangs in the inner cities. That would remove 75% of the gun deaths.

Ask the anti-gun crowd when they will push through a background check bill that doesn't try to ban everyone who's ever smoked weed. That would stop the mentally ill or anyone caring for one from obtaining a firearm.

That's what they can do. But they won't.


December 4th, 2015, 3:11 pm
Profile
QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 3126
Post Re: Gun Control
OK, ask the pro-gun crowd how many would support drug legalization, because that's what it would take to get rid of the gangs.

I'm betting few.


December 4th, 2015, 3:22 pm
Profile
Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 3283
Post Re: Gun Control
Blueskies wrote:
OK, ask the pro-gun crowd how many would support drug legalization, because that's what it would take to get rid of the gangs.

I'm betting few.


I'm all for it. You can get prescriptions for all of it now anyway. Adderall is basically cocaine. Legalize and regulate it better, shift the money to treatment.


December 4th, 2015, 3:38 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10989
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Gun Control
Pablo, please define what a "assault" rifle is. As a 8 year member of the military, I would truly like to know. Does it involve caliber, range, rate of fire, magazine capacity, or what? I seriously want to know.

_________________
Image


December 5th, 2015, 3:30 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10989
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Gun Control
As for gun control, I'm obviously against it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American sheep have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It isn't about hunting or protecting yourself against criminals. It's about protecting yourself and your family against a totalitarian government.

The liberals (Democrats) only want to ban guns in order to install a totalitarian/socialist/communist government without resistance from true Americans. Guess what? It won't work. All of MY guns were lost in a boating accident last weekend. Besides, the libtards insist that it's impossible to find 11 Million illegal immigrants, but it's possible to find 350 Million guns. If you believe that, I'm speechless. There's no cure for stupid.

I also love how libtards think that the military would be on their side. Most members of the military are conservative by a wide margin and they are not required to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Same goes for city police departments and county sheriffs. Then you have to add in the former military (like myself) and the idiots would have a bloodbath on their hands. Go for it, morons!

While the US Military is the greatest in the world, they are limited by the incompetence of the Obama administration. They can't attack civilians at all. If the ROE (Rules of Engagement) remain in place during a civil war, it would be over rather quickly. Besides. there's a reason that we were stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan so long - Insurrection and unconventional warfare. Those same tactics can be utilized here, as well. It isn't difficult.

I could go on and on with tactics, but I think you get the gist. The government isn't as powerful as it wants to be and that's their problem. As long as Americans remain armed, we will never become a Communist state or a dictatorship. The Democrats and the Republican establishment don't like that fact. And that's why they want our guns.

_________________
Image


December 5th, 2015, 4:29 am
Profile
Megatron
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: Gun Control
slybri19 wrote:
Pablo, please define what a "assault" rifle is. As a 8 year member of the military, I would truly like to know. Does it involve caliber, range, rate of fire, magazine capacity, or what? I seriously want to know.

Might want to ask the San Bernardino police chief as well considering he continually used that term in the press conferences.

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


December 5th, 2015, 1:38 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.