If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   Why is gun violence research so bad? Here comes the science (and conclusive info that whatever opinion you currently hold is not supported by science). Guns   (boingboing.net) divider line 262
    More: Interesting, gun violence, justifiable homicide, Stanford Law School, domestic violence, Lists of people by belief  
•       •       •

2615 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2013 at 8:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 10:29:31 AM  

Citrate1007: Generation_D: Citrate1007: Lobbyists don't want it at all for obvious reasons and anti-gun folks are usually motivated by emotion.  It does speak volumes that the NRA is against any research because they feel that it would always make guns bad, but I honestly think that it would deflect the attention away from the actual guns and place the violence on the environmental/personal correlations.  A lot of places have as many guns as us but don't see the violence. That in itself should also speak volumes.

you sure bout that? The USA leads the world in gun ownership per capita, by a factor of at least 2 or 3 over most of the world you want to be comparing to (e.g., Western Europe, Japan, Australia/NZ, etc)

/Checks google

Holy shiat, 88.8 guns per 100 people, Canada is at 30.3........well then.  That really does shoot a hole in the NRA's arguments that all we need is more guns.


Canada could have 3 times as many snow plows per person as the US and still need more plows.
 
2013-02-28 10:29:32 AM  
Generation_D:
The NRA is already going to oppose you in the next Republican primary, run a gun nut, dump millions into local tv and radio saturation ads, and probably win.

Thats really a big part of the issue. We can't have normal legislation for common sense response to unregulated gun ownership because, any time we suggest it, the NRA is out in force shooting at everything that moves. They're the LA cops of public policy. And we're all grandmas in pickup trucks.


Yup. I live in Texas. Shiat doesn't need to be moving for folks to shoot at it here.
The next district over allows guns in the classroom. 
I can't even read the comments section of the local paper.
 
2013-02-28 10:31:00 AM  

insano: Fubini: My point is that if we want a truly accurate picture of gun use in this country we want the data and the tools to fully encapsulate all of these different situations and understand them, rather than just looking at how many people were sent to the hospital/morgue each year, which is what crime stats and mandatory reporting laws give us.

We want to understand  how guns affect society, not just how many people they shoot.

I agree with you that research should understand the affect of guns on society and that involves many different behaviors and actions. It is certainly not incorrect to collect information on incidents like the one proposed in the article. However, I disagree that you should define the incident described as defensive gun use as apparently some have. Call it 'possession of a gun with intent to use' or something else, but not defensive gun use.  If I were reviewing an article which used that definition of 'use,' I would question the authors intent and hope they would be very careful about the conclusions drawn from such a study. Alas, this consideration all goes out the window when a study reaches the media and/or special interest groups. Better to just have a standard, logical definition of 'use.'


You wouldn't be reviewing an article with that definition, you'd be reviewing an article with a definition like, "Had intent to use weapon against a real or perceived threat" and you'd probably be OK with it in the context. The problem is when people don't read the whole story and "had intent to use weapon against a real or perceived threat" turns into "used a gun to stop a bad guy".
 
2013-02-28 10:34:57 AM  

Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.


Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.
 
2013-02-28 10:38:37 AM  

Fubini: Fubini: I'm having trouble finding injury data- and the numbers for injuries are very different than mortality. If I recall correctly, there are about 15 times as many accidental gun injuries as there are accidental deaths. There are also deliberate gun injuries from assault, but that number is less than 15 times the number of homicides, though I don't remember the exact value.

Found it- all you would ever care to know about nonfatal firearm injuries. This is about 12 years old- it'd be nice to have more recent data.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm


You can look up more recent non-fatal data using their WISQARS tool:

WISQARS Nonfatal Injury Reports

For example, in 2010, there were 14,161 non-fatal accidental firearm injuries.   Of those, roughly half (7,671) were minor because the disposition was "treated and released".  The serious cases were hospitalized, and they number 4,485, or roughly 32% of the cases treated.

That same year, according the WISQARS Fatal Injury Mortality Reports, there were 606 fatal gun accidents.

The percentage of fatal firearms accidents compared to the total of accidental injuries would be 606 / (606+14161) * 100 = 4.1%.

We could do the same comparison for homicides/assaults and suicides/attempted suicides.

Firearm Homicides: 11,078
Firearms Assaults with injuries: 53,738
Fatality percentage:  17.1%

Firearm Suicides:  19,392
Intentional self-inflicted gunshot injuries: 4,643
Fatality percentage: 80.7%

That last one got me thinking:  Is there another way to commit suicide that is as likely to be fatal?  One sort of jumped out:  Suffocation.  The fatality percentage there is 75.9%.
 
2013-02-28 10:41:15 AM  

Fail in Human Form: neversubmit: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

I don't own any guns but I want to be a gun nut, is that doable?

Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment.  Most of this board will fall over themselves to call you a lunatic gun nut.  No guns required.


A Well Regulated Militia includes the right to shoot anything anywhere if you feel threatened. Water that tree of liberty, gun nuts.
 
2013-02-28 10:42:47 AM  

enry: dittybopper: enry: doglover: Princess Ryans Knickers: Only thing you need to know is 2332 dead by guns in United States alone since Sandy Hook.

How many of those were suicides or in self defense?

To quote Hillary Clinton:  Why does it matter?

Because even a simpleton can understand that self-defense is OK, and that ultimately the decision to end one's own life is a human right.

So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?


Should the state have the absolute right to keep you alive against your wishes in all cases?

/Gee, arguing from the extremes is a fun game!
 
2013-02-28 10:43:50 AM  

Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So how do you feel about people who have a progressive, incurable terminal illness deciding to end their lives?
 
2013-02-28 10:46:04 AM  

Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.



So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?
 
2013-02-28 10:50:50 AM  

dr_blasto: Giltric: Can anyone show me a study done by the CDC before the evil republicans cut their funding where you can break gun violence down by gun violence done by people with prior convictions and gun violence done by upstanding citizens with 0 priors? One group is prohibited from owning firearms....the only group any new laws will affect would be the group of upstanding citizens with 0 priors.


In yesterdays senate hearing testimony the chief of police from milwaukee claimed over 90% of gun homicides were committed by career criminals and that over 80% of their victims were also career criminals.

The AG(?) Walsh from CO testified that the rifles Feinstein wants to ban account for less than 2% of all gun crume....both the Chief and AG were witnesses for the gun control side.

You'd also have to recognize that they indicated the guns used in crime were overwhelmingly supplied through theft and straw sales. In both cases, the guns originate from a legal ownership transfer to illegal ownership. When someone makes a purchase with the intent of delivering that weapon to a prohibited person, that purchaser would have to go through a background check and pass.

FTF sales without background checks accounted for a very small percentage of guns used in crime (I think that implies where the gun used was recovered, though).

So what you have is two major supply avenues for criminal use. If you only wanted to address access, then you'd need some pretty draconian laws like registration and outright bans--the things that likely will never happen. Anything short of that won't do the job.

I think that no honest debate about gun violence should be centered on the tools chosen and access but should focus on cause. Why are people shooting each other? While I think it is fallacious to say that if you take away guns, they'll just cave in skulls with hammers, the fact remains that the estimates show there are around 300 million guns out there. Those guns aren't going to disappear if we wi ...


IIRC they were getting into territory like the study done 2 years after background checks were mandated where the study came to the conclusion that 40% of guns were purchased without a background check but not accounting for whether background checks were mandatory for the purchaser at the time...ie if they purchased the firearm pre 1994.

They also argued about "ain't no body got time" to prosecute people who lie or fail a background check. The thing is if someone fails a background check they probably seek another way to aquire a firearm and get someone to straw purchase it for them....that would be pretty tough if they were sitting in jail for say 20 years.(I don;t know the penalty for that but it should be lenghty if it is not)
 
2013-02-28 10:51:23 AM  

Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?


You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health
 
2013-02-28 10:53:31 AM  

dr_blasto: You know, this sounds a lot like the same avenue that the National Institute for Drug Abuse/Drug Policy and the Justice Department takes towards research on illegal drugs.

Same thing, different lobby. Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control. The problem is that maybe our current gun control laws are ineffective and do the wrong things. Maybe they should be thrown out and replaced by reasonable legislation that is designed to actually reduce gun-related violence and maybe that could be done without interfering with the RKBA and maybe, just maybe, it might even be better for gun owners.

We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it. I still think that since the majority of gun violence is related to street crime and drugs and the remaining is related to domestic violence, if we legalized drugs and turned that cash toward treatment while toughening laws on domestic abuse we might actually halve our numbers of dead people. Wouldn't that be a bonus? Maybe address poverty too and quit piling poor people into dense neighborhoods full of poor people creating little black holes of hopelessness where 12-year-olds get shot for their shoes.


QFT.
 
2013-02-28 10:53:40 AM  

Generation_D: Fail in Human Form: neversubmit: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

I don't own any guns but I want to be a gun nut, is that doable?

Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment.  Most of this board will fall over themselves to call you a lunatic gun nut.  No guns required.

A Well Regulated Militia includes the right to shoot anything anywhere if you feel threatened. Water that tree of liberty, gun nuts.


May you live forever and may your chains rest lightly upon you.
 
2013-02-28 10:56:05 AM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health


Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?
 
2013-02-28 10:57:51 AM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?


Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.
 
2013-02-28 10:58:30 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Generation_D: Fail in Human Form: neversubmit: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

I don't own any guns but I want to be a gun nut, is that doable?

Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment.  Most of this board will fall over themselves to call you a lunatic gun nut.  No guns required.

A Well Regulated Militia includes the right to shoot anything anywhere if you feel threatened. Water that tree of liberty, gun nuts.

May you live forever and may your chains rest lightly upon you.


Right, because "Freedom" equals being required to participate in a moron arms race with the gun nut down the street, then hoping I shoot them before they shoot me.

The only one holding me hostage is gun nuts. Not the government, not laws that would *gasp* make me register my gun or pass a test before owning it. Not laws trying to take military grade rapid fire clear a room weapons out of the hands of nutjobs.
 
2013-02-28 11:00:24 AM  

thurstonxhowell: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

Chicago doesn't even crack the top 10 by murder rate.


Racists don't care about your facts
 
2013-02-28 11:03:39 AM  

neversubmit: Depression has lead me to suicidal thoughts more than once, should I buy a gun to defend myself?


So what stopped you?  I'm assuming you had access to a method nearly as fatal as firearms, hanging (75.9% fatal, vs. 80.7% for firearms in 2010.  See my post above for the math).  Surely you had a rope, or a bed sheet, or an electrical cord that you could have hung yourself with.  Wouldn't have taken a significantly greater effort than getting a gun from where it is stored, loading it, and shooting yourself.  Tying a couple of knots and stepping off a chair isn't that hard either.
 
2013-02-28 11:07:18 AM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.


BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?
 
2013-02-28 11:08:16 AM  
What researchers learned about gun violence before Congress killed funding

"What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent "

"We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions. "

"The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

"Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

"The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.

"These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't."

"Unfortunately, when you don't have those data that really show you, scientifically, whether or not something works, then you end up with people making statements like the following, 'Obviously, the assault weapon ban didn't work, because Columbine happened.'

"That's kind of like saying, 'Vaccines don't work because someone got the flu.'"
 
2013-02-28 11:10:05 AM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?

 
2013-02-28 11:11:22 AM  
It doesn't help when the NRA threatens scientists or their families when they don't come up with the "right" results.
 
2013-02-28 11:11:39 AM  

Witty_Retort: What researchers learned about gun violence before Congress killed funding

"What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent "

"We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions. "

"The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

"Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

"The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.

"These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't."

"Unfortunately, when you don't have those data that really show you, scientifically, whether or not something works, then you end up with people making statements like the following, 'Obviously, the assault weapon ban didn't work, because Columbine happened.'

"That's kind of like saying, 'Vaccines don't work because someone got the flu.'"


Would a drug dealer and a person buying drugs know eachother?

Would a drug dealer store his firearms out of reach of their 6 year old son or neice?

The devil is in the details....and details like that are not accounted for in these studies.
 
2013-02-28 11:12:01 AM  

mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: The idea that more guns would cause more shootings is just logical.   More bear traps would cause more bear trap accidents.  This is the default position/assumption.  In my mind, it is up to the gun nuts to show that it makes society safer, which obviously they can't do.

Now imagine that you are a researcher.  You've already got a built-in bias before you even start designing your study.  How do you think that might effect the outcome?

Everyone has an initial bias.  That is human nature.  A good researcher, is frequently surprised by the findings.


True, but there are so few good researchers, and we've been bitten in the past by bad researchers.

Not just unintentionally bad ones, either, but ones who were actually, provably lying.
 
2013-02-28 11:12:17 AM  

Fart_Machine: It doesn't help when the NRA threatens scientists or their families when they don't come up with the "right" results.


Cite?
 
2013-02-28 11:12:26 AM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?


What I meant was,

www.elliottsfancydress.co.uk
 
2013-02-28 11:15:48 AM  

dittybopper: neversubmit: Depression has lead me to suicidal thoughts more than once, should I buy a gun to defend myself?

So what stopped you?  I'm assuming you had access to a method nearly as fatal as firearms, hanging (75.9% fatal, vs. 80.7% for firearms in 2010.  See my post above for the math).  Surely you had a rope, or a bed sheet, or an electrical cord that you could have hung yourself with.  Wouldn't have taken a significantly greater effort than getting a gun from where it is stored, loading it, and shooting yourself.  Tying a couple of knots and stepping off a chair isn't that hard either.


Is that a yes or no? And don't call me shirley!
 
2013-02-28 11:15:55 AM  

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?

What I meant was,

[www.elliottsfancydress.co.uk image 700x700]


AK-15's are easily converted into full auto grenade launchers when you file down the thing that goes up.

Have fun in PMITA prison....unless you can show your FFL dash 10.
 
2013-02-28 11:17:05 AM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?

What I meant was,

[www.elliottsfancydress.co.uk image 700x700]

AK-15's are easily converted into full auto grenade launchers when you file down the thing that goes up.

Have fun in PMITA prison....unless you can show your FFL dash 10.


wha?
 
2013-02-28 11:17:25 AM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: The idea that more guns would cause more shootings is just logical.   More bear traps would cause more bear trap accidents.  This is the default position/assumption.  In my mind, it is up to the gun nuts to show that it makes society safer, which obviously they can't do.

Now imagine that you are a researcher.  You've already got a built-in bias before you even start designing your study.  How do you think that might effect the outcome?

Everyone has an initial bias.  That is human nature.  A good researcher, is frequently surprised by the findings.

True, but there are so few good researchers, and we've been bitten in the past by bad researchers.

Not just unintentionally bad ones, either, but ones who were actually, provably lying.


Do you support more Federal funding for better research?
 
2013-02-28 11:19:58 AM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?

What I meant was,

[www.elliottsfancydress.co.uk image 700x700]

AK-15's are easily converted into full auto grenade launchers when you file down the thing that goes up.

Have fun in PMITA prison....unless you can show your FFL dash 10.

wha?


I was an armorers mate in the core. I know my firearms and the regulations on manufacturing them.

Don't be coy.
 
2013-02-28 11:20:49 AM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?

What I meant was,

[www.elliottsfancydress.co.uk image 700x700]

AK-15's are easily converted into full auto grenade launchers when you file down the thing that goes up.

Have fun in PMITA prison....unless you can show your FFL dash 10.

wha?

I was an armorers mate in the core. I know my firearms and the regulations on manufacturing them.

Don't be coy.


Am I missing something here?
 
2013-02-28 11:23:37 AM  

Giltric: IIRC they were getting into territory like the study done 2 years after background checks were mandated where the study came to the conclusion that 40% of guns were purchased without a background check but not accounting for whether background checks were mandatory for the purchaser at the time...ie if they purchased the firearm pre 1994.

They also argued about "ain't no body got time" to prosecute people who lie or fail a background check. The thing is if someone fails a background check they probably seek another way to aquire a firearm and get someone to straw purchase it for them....that would be pretty tough if they were sitting in jail for say 20 years.(I don;t know the penalty for that but it should be lenghty if it is not)


I'm not sure if data exists, but it would be somewhat interesting to know how many people found with an illegal weapon were, at some point, denied a purchase due to NICS or "gut" feeling of some FFL. I know there was one shooter incident recently where someone was declined purchase and had someone else do it for them.

I'm reasonably certain that applying to purchase a firearm when you know you are not allowed to have one is a felony. I don't know if the lack of prosecutions in that area is due to the difficulty of proving the "knowingly" bit or just lack of concern or desire on the part of law enforcement agencies.
 
2013-02-28 11:25:10 AM  

Generation_D: Fail in Human Form: Generation_D: Fail in Human Form: neversubmit: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

I don't own any guns but I want to be a gun nut, is that doable?

Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment.  Most of this board will fall over themselves to call you a lunatic gun nut.  No guns required.

A Well Regulated Militia includes the right to shoot anything anywhere if you feel threatened. Water that tree of liberty, gun nuts.

May you live forever and may your chains rest lightly upon you.

Right, because "Freedom" equals being required to participate in a moron arms race with the gun nut down the street, then hoping I shoot them before they shoot me.

The only one holding me hostage is gun nuts. Not the government, not laws that would *gasp* make me register my gun or pass a test before owning it. Not laws trying to take military grade rapid fire clear a room weapons out of the hands of nutjobs.


Link to the live rally to repeal the NY SAFE act.   They're chanting "We will not comply"!  If even a fraction of them mean it then it'll tear this country apart when they try to enforce the law.
 
2013-02-28 11:29:26 AM  
There are over 3,000,000 million AR-15 variant rifles currently in circulation. Of those lets just say they cause 400 deaths a year in criminal hands. Now we divide 400 by 3000000 and get .013~ % if one person uses one rifle to kill one person. The rifle is obviously not the cause of the problem or there would be dead bodies everywhere. We don't have a gun problem, we have a lack of respect for life by psychopaths problem.
 
2013-02-28 11:30:22 AM  
Giltric:

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

I've come to the conclusion that it's more "pro-birth", cause it seems that, once the kid is born, Mom is on her own. (For most people, anyway)
 
2013-02-28 11:30:33 AM  

Giltric: Witty_Retort: What researchers learned about gun violence before Congress killed funding

"What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent "

"We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions. "

"The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

"Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

"The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.

"These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't."

"Unfortunately, when you don't have those data that really show you, scientifically, whether or not something works, then you end up with people making statements like the following, 'Obviously, the assault weapon ban didn't work, because Columbine happened.'

"That's kind of like saying, 'Vaccines don't work because someone got the flu.'"

Would a drug dealer and a person buying drugs know eachother?

Would a drug dealer store his firearms out of reach of their 6 year old son or neice?

The devil is in the details....and details like that are not accounted for in these studies.


so...we need to fund these studies so we can study it out.

Or we can go to the Universities

Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Owners of semi-automatic guns are more likely to binge drink than other gun owners.

Gun ownership creates external psychic costs.
  By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans would feel less safe, not safer, as others in their community acquire guns.

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens
 
2013-02-28 11:30:41 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment


You mean what you imagine the actual reason to be. Because there's basically no way what you believe the purpose is actually the real purpose for it.

Let me guess, to defend yourself from your own tyrannical government?
 
2013-02-28 11:32:13 AM  

dittybopper: Tomahawk513: Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.

So how do you feel about people who have a progressive, incurable terminal illness deciding to end their lives?


OH CRAP! You sure got me there!  Well, except that "progressive, incurable terminal illness" wouldn't really qualify as a temporary problem, would it?  No, it would not.  The only difference between euthanasia and that narrow form of "suicide" is the person pulling the trigger, so to speak.  I'd absolutely support that decision, especially if the person is in pain.
 
2013-02-28 11:34:12 AM  

justtray: Fail in Human Form: Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment

You mean what you imagine the actual reason to be. Because there's basically no way what you believe the purpose is actually the real purpose for it.

Let me guess, to defend yourself from your own tyrannical government?


I have no interest in rehashing the same discussion we've had in countless numbers of these threads.  You get proved wrong and then just move on or call it anachronistic.
 
2013-02-28 11:48:18 AM  

mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?


So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.
 
2013-02-28 11:51:57 AM  

Witty_Retort: What researchers learned about gun violence before Congress killed funding

"What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent "

"We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions. "


Unless the research controlled for other environmental factors, we haven't "learned" anything. There is a vast difference between a crack house in the ghetto or a meth house in the trailer park and my house. If a house has regular drug deals going down, drug use, kids running around, etc. of course there will be a vastly increased danger if firearms are present. That is not comparable to my house, in a good neighborhood, no drug deals or dealers, no kids, gun safe, and an owner with 30 odd years of safe firearms handling.

//fully support increased research if it is done in a non-biased manner.
 
2013-02-28 11:52:45 AM  

Witty_Retort: What researchers learned about gun violence before Congress killed funding

"What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent "</i>


Actually, that's false.   When independent researchers got access to the full data set, they found that the gun actually in the home only increased the risk by at most 2.4%.  The vast majority of the cases weren't where the actualgun in the home was used, but where a gun brought in from the outside was used.

That's a perfect example of something that shouldn't have passed the smell test, and it's a textbook case of "Correlation != Causation".  There was a gun in the home, but if it wasn't used in the homicide, then you can't say it caused an increase in the risk.  It likely was there because the owners perceived (rightly) that they were at some risk unrelated to the gun itself.


"We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions. "

The implication here seems to be that criminals are unacquainted with each other, don't do business with each other, live by themselves, and don't have family.  It's been well known for decades that upwards of 70% or more of people who commit homicide have a prior adult felony arrest record.  Even more shocking (but logical if you think about it), the majority of homicide *VICTIMS* are also criminals.  In some areas, as many as 91% of the homicide victims have prior arrest records.Those numbers don't include juvenile arrests, though, because those records are generally sealed and unavailable, so the percentages are likely to be significantly higher

These aren't, for the most part, "typical" people.  Just because criminals have acquaintances, business associates, and family, doesn't mean they aren't criminals.

"The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

"Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

"The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.


Actually, we have a sort-of answer for the concealed weapons question.  It's been looked at numerous times, and the debate is in two camps:   Either it does reduce crime, or it has no effect, either good or bad:

There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by
economists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime,
10 not finding any significant effect on crime, including the NRC report1, and ADZ's paper,
using a different model and different data, finding that right-to-carry laws increase one type of
violent crime, aggravated assault.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2026957 because Fark choked on the link.

"These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't."

"Unfortunately, when you don't have those data that really show you, scientifically, whether or not something works, then you end up with people making statements like the following, 'Obviously, the assault weapon ban didn't work, because Columbine happened.'

"That's kind of like saying, 'Vaccines don't work because someone got the flu.'"


No, it's more like saying "Vaccinating for the H10N7 variant of the flu doesn't work against all the other flu varieties".

No actual banned assault weapons were used at Columbine, but the effect of the law was precisely zero because there were adequate substitutes for those banned guns.  In fact, because the ban was on cosmetic features instead of on how the guns actually worked, it would be more apropos compare it to vaccination against the flu with homeopathic medicine.
 
2013-02-28 11:55:53 AM  

Citrate1007: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?

So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.


The shooters typically have insanity as an excuse.  What's your excuse for dumb posts like this?
 
2013-02-28 11:57:32 AM  

Witty_Retort: Owners of semi-automatic guns are more likely to binge drink than other gun owners.

What is the rate of binge drinking overall? Gun owners vs non gun owners?
Gun ownership creates external psychic costs. By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans would feel less safe, not safer, as others in their community acquire guns.

Irrational fear of inanimate objects?

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
So hundreds of thousands of times maybe? Compared to only 12k murders each year....sounds like a net positive for ownership.

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

Liek 2 guys arguing over the price of a kilo of coke?

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

I've used my firearm twice in self defense.....both times I would say the person I was aiming at was intimidated. Although the people I was aiming my firearm at were slashing the tires and trying to sabotage my equipment at a job site...so technically it probably doesn;t fall under self defense.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Are the people intimidating others in their home legally allowed to own firearms? If there is a history of DV odds are the person should not be legally allowed to possess a firerm

Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

criminals definately shoot other criminals and make up a majority of the gun related homicide data...why should non criminals be restricted in their ownership of firearms?


html got mad at me.
 
2013-02-28 11:59:35 AM  

neversubmit: dittybopper: neversubmit: Depression has lead me to suicidal thoughts more than once, should I buy a gun to defend myself?

So what stopped you?  I'm assuming you had access to a method nearly as fatal as firearms, hanging (75.9% fatal, vs. 80.7% for firearms in 2010.  See my post above for the math).  Surely you had a rope, or a bed sheet, or an electrical cord that you could have hung yourself with.  Wouldn't have taken a significantly greater effort than getting a gun from where it is stored, loading it, and shooting yourself.  Tying a couple of knots and stepping off a chair isn't that hard either.

Is that a yes or no? And don't call me shirley!


I didn't answer your question because it's a non-sequitur:  I was X, should I do Y because Z?  Self-defense and suicide are unrelated.  Conflating them results in the absurdity that you are arguing whether you should defend against your self with lethal force to prevent your own suicide.
 
2013-02-28 12:00:32 PM  

Citrate1007: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?

So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.


The 600 or so people shot in Chicago last year were likely not victims of a mass-murderer, though. That kind of violence (spree-shooter/mass killer) is relatively rare. The overwhelming amount of violence is one-off killings. That type of violence should be our priority and, it seems, it has taken a back seat to the sensationalized killings and awful slaughter of kids in places like Newtown.

I don't mean to marginalize their deaths either, but it seems that nobody really cares so much about the inner-city poor people, be they black or white or hispanic or whatever else. Just because the levels aren't as bad as they were in the late 80's through early 90's doesn't mean we should completely overlook them or the causes of their deaths. How many women are shot dead by escalating domestic violence?
 
2013-02-28 12:03:52 PM  

mrshowrules: Citrate1007: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?

So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.

The shooters typically have insanity as an excuse.  What's your excuse for dumb posts like this?


Actually, there is at least some evidence that mass shooters are at least partially motivated by fame.
 
2013-02-28 12:10:16 PM  

dr_blasto: How many women are shot dead by escalating domestic violence?


Not as many as you would think.  The homicide rate among women in 2010 was 2.2 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate among women that year was 1.11 per 100,000, suggesting that just about 50% of female homicide victims are killed with a firearm.

For males, that same year, the total homicide rate was 8.42 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate was 6.15 per 100,000, making the percentage of male homicide victims killed with a firearm about 73%.

Men are at much higher risk of homicide (4 times higher), and at an even higher risk of firearms homicide (nearly 6 times higher).
 
2013-02-28 12:20:15 PM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: How many women are shot dead by escalating domestic violence?

Not as many as you would think.  The homicide rate among women in 2010 was 2.2 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate among women that year was 1.11 per 100,000, suggesting that just about 50% of female homicide victims are killed with a firearm.

For males, that same year, the total homicide rate was 8.42 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate was 6.15 per 100,000, making the percentage of male homicide victims killed with a firearm about 73%.

Men are at much higher risk of homicide (4 times higher), and at an even higher risk of firearms homicide (nearly 6 times higher).


Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths
We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period.  Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among women. Journal of Urban Health. 2002; 79:26-38

Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.
We analyzed the relationship between gun availability and homicides of women with data from 25 high income countries. Across developed nations, where gun are more available, there are more homicides of women.  The United States has the most firearms and U.S. women have far more likely to be homicide victims than women in other developed countries.
Hemenway, David; Shinoda-Tagawa, Tomoko; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates across 25 populous high-income countries. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. 2002; 57:100-04.
 Link
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report