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  
•       •       •

2611 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
 
2013-02-28 06:55:29 AM
So, the fact of the matter, from RTFA, is that the actual research and standardized classifications for gun violence and crime vary as much as from person to person and study to study used, and are of poor quality. There is no consensus on what justifies such actions as "Defensive Gun Use", the definition of a justified homicide varies wildly from the national and individual state standards,

And...the ability to study that by relevant scientific bodies, like the NIH and the CDC, have been quashed by legislation aimed at keeping these institutions from putting out any studies which might be used to support gun control in any form.

www.troll.me

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.
 
2013-02-28 07:04:45 AM
boingboing.net

Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.
 
2013-02-28 07:07:16 AM

BronyMedic: So, the fact of the matter, from RTFA, is that the actual research and standardized classifications for gun violence and crime vary as much as from person to person and study to study used, and are of poor quality. There is no consensus on what justifies such actions as "Defensive Gun Use", the definition of a justified homicide varies wildly from the national and individual state standards,

And...the ability to study that by relevant scientific bodies, like the NIH and the CDC, have been quashed by legislation aimed at keeping these institutions from putting out any studies which might be used to support gun control in any form.

[www.troll.me image 304x198]

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.
 
2013-02-28 07:14:02 AM

I get all of my knowledge of guns from 80's TV.

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
"Guns don't kill people!" "Yeah, bullets do."
 
2013-02-28 07:19:36 AM

hinten: Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.


Well, yeah. Kind of like Evolution, Climate Change, and Abortion, FARK has a proud tradition of vetting bloggers, political hacks, and TV Talking Heads as experts in the field of scientific research and above reproach.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THAT, SIR!

dr_blasto: Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control.


The problem is that prohibition pretty much states that any  legitimate research on the topic can't be performed, because it might come out contrary to the will of their constituents. Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.

dr_blasto: We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it.


You hit the nail on the head. We'll never look into it in a hard, scientific manner. Instead, our guiding cues will be given to us by the likes of the NRA and the Brady Foundation, and the myriad of political heads on national Television ready to ridicule anyone who dares to question what they say to the American Public.
 
2013-02-28 07:21:47 AM

BronyMedic: 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.


I was thinking this exact same thing.  I guess it's politically convenient on both sides of the aisle to not resolve this issue.
 
2013-02-28 07:25:36 AM

BronyMedic: hinten: Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.

Well, yeah. Kind of like Evolution, Climate Change, and Abortion, FARK has a proud tradition of vetting bloggers, political hacks, and TV Talking Heads as experts in the field of scientific research and above reproach.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THAT, SIR!

dr_blasto: Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control.

The problem is that prohibition pretty much states that any  legitimate research on the topic can't be performed, because it might come out contrary to the will of their constituents. Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.

dr_blasto: We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it.

You hit the nail on the head. We'll never look into it in a hard, scientific manner. Instead, our guiding cues will be given to us by the likes of the NRA and the Brady Foundation, and the myriad of political heads on national Television ready to ridicule anyone who dares to question what they say to the American Public.


Legitimate research could shut that whole thing down. We'll just truck along listening to the shills on the pro- and anti-gun control think tanks, lobby organizations and paid hacks as the sole source of our policies. So long as that continues, we'll still have thousands of dead people every year who die unnecessarily and, simultaneously, weird gun laws that make no sense and only serve to confound gun hobbyists. We've clearly chosen the direction wherein everybody loses except the lobbyists themselves; they'll laugh all the way to the bank.
 
2013-02-28 07:26:48 AM

xanadian: BronyMedic: 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.

I was thinking this exact same thing.  I guess it's politically convenient on both sides of the aisle to not resolve this issue.


I hate to get political this early in a this thread but what about Obama's proposal which specifically addresses the issue of funding and allowing CDC to do further research is irrational?
Yes, the whole discussion around automatic weapons vs any other weapon is a sideshow but I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.
 
2013-02-28 07:40:07 AM

hinten: [boingboing.net image 850x442]

Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.


ke= 1/2mv2
 
2013-02-28 08:23:52 AM

hinten: [boingboing.net image 850x442]

Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.


Automatic weapons are needed to fight against the wild hog menace because science. (Hogs reproduce sexually and that is science.)
 
2013-02-28 08:30:08 AM

BronyMedic: 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.


How dare you question our ability to pack our prisons to the rafters
 
2013-02-28 08:32:36 AM

hinten: [boingboing.net image 850x442]

Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.


So we can begin framing this as a science vs anti-science debate?  Because that's a lot more one-sided of an argument than the complex problem of firearm violence.

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.


The same policies on - and attitudes toward - drugs that give us a major factor in urban gun violence?  I'm shocked.
 
2013-02-28 08:34:33 AM
Studying gun violence is an infringement of my Second Amendment rights.
 
2013-02-28 08:38:59 AM
I get all my science from Dr. Ron Paul who is a doctor BTW. DOCTOR RON PAUL!
 
2013-02-28 08:39:32 AM
Cigarette companies didn't want anyone to research the cause of lung cancer, oil companies don't want anyone to research the cause of global warming, and the NRA doesn't want anyone to research gun violence.
 
2013-02-28 08:43:16 AM
The science clearly shows that libs are scared of guns and they call magazines "clips" probably because clips are what they call saggy pants which are what black teens wear because they want to be just like their homosexual heroes in prison who wear saggy pants because they are gay.

Case closed.
 
2013-02-28 08:44:20 AM

hinten: I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.


The question is what will people do with the truth when they know, assuming its the actual truth and not just another study rigged to support a specific point of view. Because we've had more of the latter than anything else in recent years.
If an unbiased study doesn't support the political desires of the ruling party, will they heed its suggestions or sweep those results under a rug?

/and I mean this for both pro-gun and anti-gun perspectives.
/Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.
 
2013-02-28 08:46:45 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-28 08:47:55 AM

hinten: xanadian: BronyMedic: 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.

I was thinking this exact same thing.  I guess it's politically convenient on both sides of the aisle to not resolve this issue.

I hate to get political this early in a this thread but what about Obama's proposal which specifically addresses the issue of funding and allowing CDC to do further research is irrational?
Yes, the whole discussion around automatic weapons vs any other weapon is a sideshow but I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.


Can't have none of that. This is GUNS. SECOND AMENDMENT FREEDOMS. Studying guns is just a way to ban them, what part of being an American don't you understand?
 
2013-02-28 08:51:58 AM

way south: /Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.


No need to turn them in, once the UN takes over your property Obama is going to send jack booted negro thugs from ACORN to pick you up and put you into a FEMA concentration camp. Then said thugs will cuckold your wife, rape your daughters, and steal all your guns to have them melted down into slag. Said slag will then be used to produce a Eifell Tower sized stature of Karl Marx who will be blowing Chairmen Mao.

Geez man, keep up. Don't you read The Blaze?
 
2013-02-28 08:52:17 AM
That's a whole lot of text from someone who is apparently just learning about science for the first time ever.
 
2013-02-28 08:59:01 AM
I don't really get what the author's point is.  Is it just that no research currently exists, and that future research will be difficult since the definitions of important measuring terminology are vague?  Because really, if that's it, who cares?
 
2013-02-28 09:01:07 AM
Give the researchers some time. They were just given their marching orders a few months ago.
 
2013-02-28 09:01:48 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: way south: /Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.

No need to turn them in, once the UN takes over your property Obama is going to send jack booted negro thugs from ACORN to pick you up and put you into a FEMA concentration camp. Then said thugs will cuckold your wife, rape your daughters, and steal all your guns to have them melted down into slag. Said slag will then be used to produce a Eifell Tower sized stature of Karl Marx who will be blowing Chairmen Mao.

Geez man, keep up. Don't you read The Blaze?




Why would anyone read a liberal rag like that?
You might as well get your infromation from Al Jazeera.
 
2013-02-28 09:02:33 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Cigarette companies didn't want anyone to research the cause of lung cancer, oil companies don't want anyone to research the cause of global warming, and the NRA doesn't want anyone to research gun violence.


For the past couple of years our Conservative Canadian Prime Minister has basically been firing all Federal scientists.  Sometimes it is just better to be in the dark.  Makes Conservative policies more palatable.
 
2013-02-28 09:06:15 AM
If you were studying gun use, and you wanted to know how often guns were used in self-defense, how would you categorize Charles Wellford's experience?

I think the answer is pretty clearly that being a paranoid and overprotective father is not an instance of using a gun for self-defense. That's a bad example.

But let me guess which side would use this to inflate the instances of 'self-defense' with a firearm.
 
2013-02-28 09:06:20 AM

Tomahawk513: I don't really get what the author's point is.  Is it just that no research currently exists, and that future research will be difficult since the definitions of important measuring terminology are vague?  Because really, if that's it, who cares?


The other thing he doesn't do (but which real scientists do all the time) is talk about techniques to identify and quantify error in studies like these. Scientists have plenty of tools to analyze data to determine how high quality it is, but normally this requires access to the source data, which I'm not sure is available anywhere.
 
2013-02-28 09:06:39 AM

way south: hinten: I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.

The question is what will people do with the truth when they know, assuming its the actual truth and not just another study rigged to support a specific point of view. Because we've had more of the latter than anything else in recent years.
If an unbiased study doesn't support the political desires of the ruling party, will they heed its suggestions or sweep those results under a rug?

/and I mean this for both pro-gun and anti-gun perspectives.
/Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.


Well, doing research on smoking has, ultimately, had an effect on consumption. It has taken a long time and there were certainly plenty of studies that came to different conclusions, some sponsored by cigarette manufacturers, but there was a clear impact on society. And even after the research it takes millions of dollars to change society even after the facts are known. Some might argue there is a whole other parasitic cottage industry popping up enjoying those millions of dollars but either way the money gets moved, society is changing.

I am in no way comparing the issue of guns with the issue of cigarettes. For starters, one product is a consumption based product which has different intrinsic values and market behaviors from guns. That's why bringing up prohibition in a gun thread is a red herring as well. But the example does show that research leads to insight leads to action leads to impact on societal behavior and attitudes.
 
2013-02-28 09:08:26 AM
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.
 
2013-02-28 09:08:36 AM
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.

The only logical argument for gun rights is an ideological one that people should be entitled to defend themselves however they see fit regardless of the obvious net reduction to societal safety.

I don't agree with that argument but at least it isn't fallacious or dishonest.
 
2013-02-28 09:09:30 AM

ox45tallboy: I get all of my knowledge of guns from 80's TV.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]
"Guns don't kill people!" "Yeah, bullets do."


Gotta check to see if that's on Netflix.
 
2013-02-28 09:10:48 AM
 
2013-02-28 09:10:52 AM

insano: I think the answer is pretty clearly that being a paranoid and overprotective father is not an instance of using a gun for self-defense. That's a bad example.

But let me guess which side would use this to inflate the instances of 'self-defense' with a firearm.


I think the point is more, "This story is a definitive use of a gun- how do you classify it, and you must classify it as something."

One goal is to establish how many total gun uses there are (regardless of whether they're fired or not) and then quantify those types of uses. You might not agree that this usage is "self defense," but it's clearly on a whole different level from a criminal brandishing a gun while robbing someone. Neither instance results in a shooting, but they're both uses, and we'd like to be able to understand how guns are actually being used.
 
2013-02-28 09:12:01 AM

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.

The only logical argument for gun rights is an ideological one that people should be entitled to defend themselves however they see fit regardless of the obvious net reduction to societal safety.

I don't agree with that argument but at least it isn't fallacious or dishonest.


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.
 
2013-02-28 09:12:55 AM

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)
 
2013-02-28 09:13:22 AM
ctrl+f "tiahrt". "Phrase not found."
 
2013-02-28 09:13:39 AM
Also, the NRA got Congress to bar the CDC from studying gun violence. President Obama's recent EOs put an end to that. Shockingly, the ostrich approach didn't yield great results.
 
2013-02-28 09:15:27 AM

Fail in Human Form: Gun Facts Version 6.1


We don't need to study gun use, we have GUN FACTS.

INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Annnnnd I quit reading.

Gun blogger out to spin everything to shove his effed up views.

Shove this, gun nut.
 
2013-02-28 09:15:30 AM

dr_blasto: BronyMedic: hinten: Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.

Well, yeah. Kind of like Evolution, Climate Change, and Abortion, FARK has a proud tradition of vetting bloggers, political hacks, and TV Talking Heads as experts in the field of scientific research and above reproach.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THAT, SIR!

dr_blasto: Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control.

The problem is that prohibition pretty much states that any  legitimate research on the topic can't be performed, because it might come out contrary to the will of their constituents. Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.

dr_blasto: We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it.

You hit the nail on the head. We'll never look into it in a hard, scientific manner. Instead, our guiding cues will be given to us by the likes of the NRA and the Brady Foundation, and the myriad of political heads on national Television ready to ridicule anyone who dares to question what they say to the American Public.

Legitimate research could shut that whole thing down. We'll just truck along listening to the shills on the pro- and anti-__________ think tanks, lobby organizations and paid hacks as the sole source of our policies. So long as that continues, we'll still have thousands of________ every year who _______ unnecessarily and, simultaneously, weird __________ laws that make no sense and only serve to confound _____________. We've clearly chosen the direction wherein everybody loses except the lobbyists themselves; they'll laugh all the way to the bank.


Isn't this how everything is done now?
 
2013-02-28 09:18:42 AM

Citrate1007: 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.

The only logical argument for gun rights is an ideological one that people should be entitled to defend themselves however they see fit regardless of the obvious net reduction to societal safety.

I don't agree with that argument but at least it isn't fallacious or dishonest.

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.


Actually, if we're doing order of magnitude, you're spot on.

Of the 300,000,000 firearms in the US, only 30,000 or so are used in shootings, and a large chunk of that are suicides which can't really be blamed on guns anymore than Japanese jumpers can be blamed on the trains they hop under.
 
2013-02-28 09:20:11 AM

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.


I think their biggest concern is that any research, no matter how good or bad, will be construed against them. There is a lot of junk science concerning guns, and a lot of good science that was later retracted by authors once more information became available.

This is the top Google result for something about bad gun science:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/. It's just not feasible for a layperson to sit down and really examine all this evidence for themselves, and it'd be very easy for a well-meaning but uninformed person to take that article and then run the opposite direction with it- thinking that the authors are claiming the opposite of the refuted study. All they're doing is claiming that a previous study was not scientifically valid- they're not trying to argue that gun shows actually do promote violence or anything of the sort.

It's extremely difficult to actually determine truth.
 
2013-02-28 09:21:03 AM

Fubini: One goal is to establish how many total gun uses there are (regardless of whether they're fired or not) and then quantify those types of uses. You might not agree that this usage is "self defense," but it's clearly on a whole different level from a criminal brandishing a gun while robbing someone. Neither instance results in a shooting, but they're both uses, and we'd like to be able to understand how guns are actually being used.


Someone bringing a firearm to guard against an imaginary danger can not be considered 'self-defense' or even 'using' the gun. If that were the case, then research will produce hyperinflated numbers of gun uses in self defense. By this reasoning, every time a gun owner loads a gun, holds a gun, conceals it, or brings it with them anywhere, could be considered a 'use' as long as the intention of the person was to use the gun in the event of any dangerous circumstance, perceived or real. When a police officer brings a gun with him to work, is he 'using' the gun? How many times is he using the gun throughout the day as it stays holstered? Is each traffic stop a separate use of the gun? Each time he exits the vehicle? What about someone with a concealed carry permit?
 
2013-02-28 09:23:56 AM

Fubini: It's extremely difficult to actually determine truth.


What is this truth thing you speak of, it sounds like something the lamestream media cooked up as a bias against lawful gun owners.

way south: Why would anyone read a liberal rag like that?
You might as well get your infromation from Al Jazeera.


Or heaven forbid that cess pit RT News
 
2013-02-28 09:25:47 AM
My cat's breath smells like gunpowder
 
2013-02-28 09:25:48 AM
Only thing you need to know is 2332 dead by guns in United States alone since Sandy Hook.
 
2013-02-28 09:26:51 AM

Digipr0f69: Legitimate research could shut that whole thing down. We'll just truck along listening to the shills on the pro- and anti-__________ think tanks, lobby organizations and paid hacks as the sole source of our policies. So long as that continues, we'll still have thousands of________ every year who _______ unnecessarily and, simultaneously, weird __________ laws that make no sense and only serve to confound _____________. We've clearly chosen the direction wherein everybody loses except the lobbyists themselves; they'll laugh all the way to the bank.

Isn't this how everything is done now?


Well, yeah, pretty much. Who needs facts when there's money to be made at the expense of society?
 
2013-02-28 09:28:13 AM

hinten: [boingboing.net image 850x442]

Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.


Actually, surprisingly enough, I agree.  There is a lack of *GOOD* basic science.

The article points out the political pitfalls of the science, and it obliquely touches upon why the CDC was forbidden from from working on gun violence, but it doesn't come out and say the actual reason:  Because the CDC's research on the matter was so bad that it had to be either due to blatant bias, or to serious incompetence.

Congress decided that *NO* science was better than *BAD* science, and I have to agree with that position.  Consider betting on dice.  If you are told the dice are fair, when they are actually loaded, you've got bad data, and if you make decisions upon that data, you're most likely going to lose.  If, on the other hand, you aren't told anything about the dice, you might assume that they are loaded, and bet accordingly.  Or, you may not.  On average, though, you'll come out better if you don't make any assumptions about the fairness of the dice than you would if you assumed the dice were fair when they actually weren't.

That's kind of what the situation was in 1996:  The CDC, because of some bias was viewing gun violence research as if it were a transmissible disease.  That's not to say that the bias was necessarily intentional.  I can think of numerous ways it could have been unintentional:

1. People with advanced degrees who live and work in major cities often have very limited or zero exposure to non-criminal gun ownership, so subconsciously they internalize guns as purely a problem without a counterbalance.

2. People who normally work with communicable diseases don't understand that violence is different than, say, HIV or Influenza.  This is the old "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem.

3. The research was mostly done in large cities.   For instance, one of the major researchers funded by the CDC, Arthur Kellermann, focused all his research in urban areas.  That alone introduces a major bias into the data.

That's not to say there couldn't have been out-right intentional bias.  Almost certainly there was at least some, and given the background of the researchers in question, it was probably more in the direction of pro-control instead of pro-rights.

I would actually *LOVE* to see good (ie., non-biased) research into the issue.

I don't think we are actually going to get that, though.  We had this argument back in the 1990s, back when gun control was the fashion like it seems to be today.

To put it most succinctly:  While I would welcome unbiased research into the matter, you have to go a *LONG* way, farther than normal, to convince me the research won't be slanted politically.  Perhaps requiring researchers to publish their full datasets when they publish their papers, or very shortly thereafter, would help.

Also, in the end, it might largely be irrelevant because of the elephant in the room:  The Second Amendment.  The Supreme Court has ruled that owning a firearm is an individual right, and it has incorporated that right against the states.  That puts the brakes on a large number potential policies.  Arguably, it could also cause the repeal of some current laws, for example, in the 10 states that currently limit CCW licenses on subjective criteria, or on permits to purchase that require a person pay hundreds of dollars just for the ability to own a handgun.  Those are currently being litigated at the federal district court level, and we may be 100% "Shall Issue" in a couple of short years.

The author didn't even touch upon that, though:  There is zero mention of "Second Amendment" in the article.  Granted, it's about science, and in this article she focuses on problems with the data itself and how it's collected, but as I pointed out that's a very large elephant sitting in the room, and it gets largely ignored.
 
2013-02-28 09:28:35 AM

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?
 
2013-02-28 09:28:41 AM

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.
 
2013-02-28 09:29:39 AM

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


It would be good to know how many were shot by police, suicides, or accidents from negligence.
 
2013-02-28 09:31:48 AM

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)


Still though a per capita comparison may be misleading.  Most people who own guns own more than one (I have 3).  It would be better to look at what % of the population owns guns because I would be willing to bet that we horde them like there is no tomorrow.
 
2013-02-28 09:32:26 AM

Generation_D: Fail in Human Form: Gun Facts Version 6.1

We don't need to study gun use, we have GUN FACTS.

INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Annnnnd I quit reading.

Gun blogger out to spin everything to shove his effed up views.

Shove this, gun nut.


i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-28 09:32:56 AM

insano: Fubini: One goal is to establish how many total gun uses there are (regardless of whether they're fired or not) and then quantify those types of uses. You might not agree that this usage is "self defense," but it's clearly on a whole different level from a criminal brandishing a gun while robbing someone. Neither instance results in a shooting, but they're both uses, and we'd like to be able to understand how guns are actually being used.

Someone bringing a firearm to guard against an imaginary danger can not be considered 'self-defense' or even 'using' the gun. If that were the case, then research will produce hyperinflated numbers of gun uses in self defense. By this reasoning, every time a gun owner loads a gun, holds a gun, conceals it, or brings it with them anywhere, could be considered a 'use' as long as the intention of the person was to use the gun in the event of any dangerous circumstance, perceived or real. When a police officer brings a gun with him to work, is he 'using' the gun? How many times is he using the gun throughout the day as it stays holstered? Is each traffic stop a separate use of the gun? Each time he exits the vehicle? What about someone with a concealed carry permit?


It depends on exactly what you're trying to capture- that's the whole point. I would argue that there's a clear difference between what happened in TFA and  actually finding someone in your house. But then, at least in my mind, there's also a clear difference between what happened in TFA and simply carrying a gun with you that day. In TFA the gun wasn't used in the sense of firing or brandishing, but it would be hard to argue that it didn't provide the wielder with some measure of material comfort or reassurance that he would be safe even in the event of trouble. It could also be argued that the gun can modify people's behaviors simply by it's presence: for example, the guy in TFA might have just called 911 instead of investigating himself.

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.
 
2013-02-28 09:34:13 AM

hinten: way south: hinten: I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.

The question is what will people do with the truth when they know, assuming its the actual truth and not just another study rigged to support a specific point of view. Because we've had more of the latter than anything else in recent years.
If an unbiased study doesn't support the political desires of the ruling party, will they heed its suggestions or sweep those results under a rug?

/and I mean this for both pro-gun and anti-gun perspectives.
/Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.

Well, doing research on smoking has, ultimately, had an effect on consumption. It has taken a long time and there were certainly plenty of studies that came to different conclusions, some sponsored by cigarette manufacturers, but there was a clear impact on society. And even after the research it takes millions of dollars to change society even after the facts are known. Some might argue there is a whole other parasitic cottage industry popping up enjoying those millions of dollars but either way the money gets moved, society is changing.

I am in no way comparing the issue of guns with the issue of cigarettes. For starters, one product is a consumption based product which has different intrinsic values and market behaviors from guns. That's why bringing up prohibition in a gun thread is a red herring as well. But the example does show that research leads to insight leads to action leads to impact on societal behavior and attitudes.




I agree that studies, valid or not, will have an effect.
It's because they do that many poorly constructed (or outright fraudulent) studies appear in mainstream conversations.

I'm wondering if people will accept the repercussions of a truly unbiased study when they aren't already sure of the outcome.

More guns means more shootings. As someone mentioned the bear trap example, more traps also means fewer bears. Do we accept the reality or more bear trappings, and more kids accidentally stepping in traps, if it lowers the risk of being mauled by bears?

...or do we gloss over the reason why people keep buying traps because we dislike trapping so much that we prefer the image of a one sided argument?
What if the bears are the ones petitioning for the trap ban?

I mean, this origin of these kinds if studies is often far from unbiased. The cynic in me isn't ready to believe that will change because its been ordered through political channels.
If it was possible to get a fair study, and if the results showed everyone to be wrong in their preconceptions, I'm willing to wager they bury the results faster than a dead hooker in a congressmans car trunk.
 
2013-02-28 09:34:38 AM
My biggest problem with guns, is that I can go out and buy one. I have never even touched a gun.
I don't think we need bans. I do think licensing would be good. In the same vein as driving a car. 
Have to prove you can handle a car. You should have to prove you can handle a gun. 
Maybe that would cut down the numbers of kids getting ahold of them.
 
2013-02-28 09:35:14 AM
www.realnewsreporter.com
You don't need science. The guy with the gun is always right. For instance, this gentleman thinks that you are about to donate your wallet to his favorite charity, Shaky's Meth Emporium. He'll be happy to make the donation for you.
 
2013-02-28 09:35:21 AM
The really telling thing is that the gun lobby have driven what should have been simple and standardized reporting metrics into such disarray that nothing useful can be drawn from them.

The car lobby hasn't pushed automotive reporting metrics into a clusterfark.  I wonder what the gun lobby is scared of from basic metrics such that they've engineered this?  What are their numbers telling them that they don't want going public?

Correlation hints at causation, and actively disrupting statistics hints that the real stats are pretty ugly.
 
2013-02-28 09:35:40 AM

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?
 
2013-02-28 09:36:09 AM
We dont have a good nationwide standard to define or report instances but by God we should have flawed yet widely reported studies on guns.

The govt prohibited studies to be done due to how poor the data was. Some people however dont care if the data sucks. As long as they can cite a report supporting gun prohibition they're happy.

I'm surprised some naive person hasn't blamed the Tiahart Amendment yet.
 
2013-02-28 09:36:12 AM

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?


Wouldn't that be both?
 
2013-02-28 09:38:39 AM

imontheinternet: [www.realnewsreporter.com image 300x255]
You don't need science. The guy with the gun is always right. For instance, this gentleman thinks that you are about to donate your wallet to his favorite charity, Shaky's Meth Emporium. He'll be happy to make the donation for you.


His trigger finger is in the proper safe position, off the trigger and on the side of the frame.  He's not a real criminal, hence, no donation.
 
2013-02-28 09:39:07 AM

badhatharry: It would be good to know how many were shot by police, suicides, or accidents from negligence.


Go nuts. Link
 
2013-02-28 09:39:18 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-28 09:39:52 AM

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?


Let me also point out, before someone else does, that I also have my biases, just on the opposite side, and that colors how I look at firearms.
 
2013-02-28 09:40:09 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)

Still though a per capita comparison may be misleading.  Most people who own guns own more than one (I have 3).  It would be better to look at what % of the population owns guns because I would be willing to bet that we horde them like there is no tomorrow.


About  30% of individuals, about 50% of households own a gun in America.
 
2013-02-28 09:45:26 AM

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?
 
2013-02-28 09:46:04 AM
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUUUUNSSS!!!
i1151.photobucket.com
BUT NOT SCIENCE!!!(unless it's science on better guns)
 
2013-02-28 09:46:51 AM
The only thing that can stop bad science with a gun is good science with a gun.
 
2013-02-28 09:46:54 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: badhatharry: It would be good to know how many were shot by police, suicides, or accidents from negligence.

Go nuts. Link


CDC Mortality data provides a much better picture of the relative magnitude of homicides vs suicides:  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm. Suicides are about 60% of gun deaths, accidental deaths are a small fraction (less than 1%).

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.
 
2013-02-28 09:48:17 AM
dancingczars.files.wordpress.com

-Gun Nut
 
2013-02-28 09:48:25 AM

dittybopper: His trigger finger is in the proper safe position, off the trigger and on the side of the frame. He's not a real criminal, hence, no donation.


Trigger discipline doesn't automatically mean he's not a meth-addicted criminal.  Maybe he had an unfortunate trigger accident while robbing someone and learned his lesson.
 
2013-02-28 09:50:18 AM

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
 
2013-02-28 09:50:56 AM
So. Your daughter doesn't call, so u take a gun to her house to investigate?
 
2013-02-28 09:52:04 AM
This thread is remarkably free of wharrgarble.

/Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2013-02-28 09:56:11 AM

imontheinternet: [www.realnewsreporter.com image 300x255]
You don't need science. The guy with the gun is always right. For instance, this gentleman thinks that you are about to donate your wallet to his favorite charity, Shaky's Meth Emporium. He'll be happy to make the donation for you.


Your concealed weapon sure deterred that robbery.  Congrats.
 
2013-02-28 09:56:12 AM

SirLothar: This thread is remarkably free of wharrgarble.

/Fark, I am disappoint.


Here, I'll help.  Choose either A or B:

1) GUNZ R BAD MMM'KAY? THEY SHOULD ALL BE BANNED AND CONFISCATED!!

R) The ONLY THING that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so ARM EVERYBODY!!!

You're welcome.
 
2013-02-28 09:57:38 AM

Fubini: About  30% of individuals, about 50% of households own a gun in America.


The numbers are hard to pin down accurately, though:  There is a downward bias to reporting it.

All of those numbers are based upon surveys of the general population, and there are two types of people who are unlikely to report their gun ownership to a stranger with a clipboard or one on the phone:  Hard-core gun rights activists, who might be wary that it's some sort of government trick or who believe it's NOYFB*, and criminals, who have a realistic fear that admitting to gun ownership would result in being arrested.

Both of those cases (and there is probably a relatively small overlap between them) are likely to just say "No, I don't own any" when asked.

There is a potential third case also:  When a family member of the gun owner is polled about whether there is a gun in the home, and they don't know there is one present so they answer negative.  That's probably more biased to the criminal side, though I suppose it's possible that someone who legally owns one might keep it locked away and out of sight of their spouse if the spouse is against guns.

I can't think of a reason for a corresponding upward bias to the numbers (ie., people falsely reporting that they do own guns when they actually don't).

That's why I think the surveys of who owns a gun consistently report a number lower than the actual, true number.

*None Of Your Farkin' Business
 
2013-02-28 09:57:59 AM

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

-Gun Nut


Chicago doesn't even crack the top 10 by murder rate.
 
2013-02-28 10:00:37 AM

Tomahawk513: SirLothar: This thread is remarkably free of wharrgarble.

/Fark, I am disappoint.

Here, I'll help.  Choose either A or B:

1) GUNZ R BAD MMM'KAY? THEY SHOULD ALL BE BANNED AND CONFISCATED!!

R) The ONLY THING that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so ARM EVERYBODY!!!

You're welcome.


Why not both?
 
2013-02-28 10:02:00 AM

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?
 
2013-02-28 10:07:05 AM

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.'
 
2013-02-28 10:07:29 AM

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?
 
2013-02-28 10:09:49 AM

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.
 
2013-02-28 10:13:13 AM

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.
 
2013-02-28 10:13:13 AM
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.
 
2013-02-28 10:14:13 AM

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?


I'm a fan of 3-ways, and I've never had one.
 
2013-02-28 10:14:26 AM

Earpj: My biggest problem with guns, is that I can go out and buy one. I have never even touched a gun.
I don't think we need bans. I do think licensing would be good. In the same vein as driving a car.
Have to prove you can handle a car. You should have to prove you can handle a gun.
Maybe that would cut down the numbers of kids getting ahold of them.


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.
 
2013-02-28 10:14:51 AM

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?
 
2013-02-28 10:14:57 AM

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.


Depression has lead me to suicidal thoughts more than once, should I buy a gun to defend myself?
 
2013-02-28 10:15:32 AM
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?

AHhh hahha holy shiat
 
2013-02-28 10:15:47 AM

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


Sometimes freedom is a little messy.

So is the drug war turf battle.
 
2013-02-28 10:15:51 AM

mrshowrules: 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?

I'm a fan of 3-ways, and I've never had one.


So... you, me, and a gun?
 
2013-02-28 10:16:23 AM

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?


i1135.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-28 10:18:35 AM
The "What are you afraid of?" rule says that the best research would support gun control.

Hey, folks, you can go ahead and admit the 2nd applies to "the people" as it says it does, and still be for gun control.
 
2013-02-28 10:20:18 AM
Only tobacco companies know enough about cigarettes to properly determine their danger.

Only the NRA understands the nature and culture of firearms to properly determine their danger to society.

Only pedophiles know enough about victims of pedophilia to properly determine the harm of kid-touching.

Someday you gun grabbers will get it.
 
2013-02-28 10:20:32 AM

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.
 
2013-02-28 10:24:35 AM
I don't think the article is saying that nothing can be derived from current data (which is what a lot of you seem to be getting out of it).

It's saying that if we're really concerned about this, then national, fully-funded real studies with controls and shiat by neutral third parties would do a lot more good than the current cobbling-together of a dozen different data sources that we've got.  Which is true enough.  While there is current data that does say things, it's mostly about crime rates and so on in general and not the actual role of guns, or drugs.

We're probably never going to get what TFA wants, though, because of the DEA and the NRA, who are unreasonable well past the end-point of sanity.
 
2013-02-28 10:24:49 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.


Including the mentally disabled?  Minors?  People suffering from mental depression?  Drunks?
 
2013-02-28 10:28:28 AM

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 wish them away.
 
2013-02-28 10:28:32 AM

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.
 
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
 
2013-02-28 12:21:36 PM

dittybopper: 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.


The devil tells some to do it.  Others do it out of a delusional sense of self defense or revenge.

There are many things society can do differently to reduce these types of crimes.  Universal background checks and banning military weapons in society is just low-hanging fruit that does not go against the Constitution.  This proposal (the dumb one) is both impractical and would be anti-Constitutional as well.
 
2013-02-28 12:22:17 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).


Men are much more likely to engage in high-risk behavior, like criminal activity or seeking illicit drugs. That their homicide rate is much higher is no surprise. My understanding of the homicide rate of women is that those 2.2 of 100k, the great majority are killed by someone very close to them (as in, not just a business/criminal associate, but a domestic partner). Very different homicide reasons.
 
2013-02-28 12:29:45 PM

dittybopper: 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.


It doesn't follow that the force must be lethal I could just shoot myself in the leg. Which would make stepping off a chair much harder and thus a defense against hanging.

/maiecutic
 
2013-02-28 12:34:21 PM

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.


And who the hell are you to tell people how to solve their problems?
 
2013-02-28 12:37:39 PM
 mrshowrules: Universal background checks and banning military weapons in society is just low-hanging fruit that does not go against the Constitution.

We already ban military weapons, they are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.  No individual is allowed to own one that was manufactured after 1986.

Oh, wait:  You mean military-*STYLE* weapons, don't you?

You just don't like the way they look.
 
2013-02-28 12:51:01 PM

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

-Gun Nut


Are you trying to prove why solid research is so necessary?  Because you're doing a good job, buddy.
 
2013-02-28 01:05:21 PM

Witty_Retort: 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


Hmmmm. Hemenway, where have I heard that name before?

Oh, yeah, that's right, he's director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.   The HICRC receives a lot of money in grants from the Joyce Foundation, specifically for firearms research.

The Joyce Foundation is the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States.

I'm sure that the $1.525 million the HICRC has received in grant money from the Joyce Foundation in the last 5 years won't influence the outcome of his research at all.

/That last sentence was sarcasm, btw.
 
2013-02-28 01:15:21 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: 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


It's cool, I got this.  It's interesting you should bring up abortion.  I won't disclose my personal views on the issue, instead I will prove to you why abortion is a poor comparison.  Let's take two people, we'll call them Subject A and Subject B.  One has depression, the other is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.  In the simplest words possible, both have an abnormal situation that they'd prefer to have corrected.  There are a variety of options available to address their respective issues.  They could choose to live with the situation: Depression subject would not seek treatment, Pregnancy subject could carry and raise the child.  They could choose to seek natural treatment: Go to therapy, carry the child to term and then offer it up for adoption.  Or they could choose an immediate intervention: antidepressant medications, abortion.

See, unlike suicide, abortion is a temporary fix to a temporary/permanent problem (temporary if abortion or adoption, permanent if child is kept).  Abortion does not prevent the person from getting pregnant again.  For this reason, abortion is not like suicide.  Since there is nothing quite like suicide in terms of permanence, impact, or volume of people affected it is absolutely permissible to have a unique opinion.
 
2013-02-28 01:35:24 PM
Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.
 
2013-02-28 01:53:30 PM

Ned Stark: 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.

And who the hell are you to tell people how to solve their problems?


Well, if I want to solve a math problem, I usually try to work it out.  I use logic and tools such as PEMDAS and a calculator.  If I want to solve a relationship problem, I use active listening and articulate explanation.  If I want to solve a personal problem, I use friends, pastors, therapists, or other tools.  I'm having a hard time seeing what problem suicide solves.  It seems that using suicide to solve a problem would be akin to tearing up a math test because you get to a tough question.
 
2013-02-28 02:01:10 PM
dittybopper:

Hmmmm. Hemenway, where have I heard that name before?

You sound concerned.

You also have a lot of links that don't actually say what you claim. I seem to remember another case where a person or group would just spit out misinformation as quickly as possible, hoping that reality wouldn't be able to catch up with them.

The Joyce Foundation believes that access to data and sound research on gun violence is critical to the development of effective public policies to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.

Histories greatest monsters

In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of
$8,385,304 in its Environment program,
$7,888,380 in its Education program,
$6,302,775 in its Employment program,
$3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program,
$2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and
$1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

So $3 million out of $30 million is  "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source

I'm sure $300,000 per year is a small amount in total research dollars Harvard receives. Besides, there is a history of research not turning out like the grant givers thought it would.
 
2013-02-28 02:23:17 PM

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.


AK-15? Core?

media.comicvine.com
/MmMmm! Hot links!
 
2013-02-28 03:05:28 PM

ox45tallboy: I get all of my knowledge of guns from 80's TV.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]
"Guns don't kill people!" "Yeah, bullets do."


I prefer underrated Tom Cruise movies.
3.bp.blogspot.com
"You killed him!"
"No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him."
 
2013-02-28 03:27:47 PM

Empty Matchbook: ox45tallboy: I get all of my knowledge of guns from 80's TV.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]
"Guns don't kill people!" "Yeah, bullets do."

I prefer underrated Tom Cruise movies.
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]
"You killed him!"
"No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him."


Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H8-P8sJNHk0
 
2013-02-28 03:42:32 PM

insano: Someone bringing a firearm to guard against an imaginary danger can not be considered 'self-defense' or even 'using' the gun


Tell that to Trayvon Martin.
 
2013-02-28 03:49:15 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Hmmmm. Hemenway, where have I heard that name before?

You sound concerned.

You also have a lot of links that don't actually say what you claim. I seem to remember another case where a person or group would just spit out misinformation as quickly as possible, hoping that reality wouldn't be able to catch up with them.

The Joyce Foundation believes that access to data and sound research on gun violence is critical to the development of effective public policies to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.

Histories greatest monsters

In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of
$8,385,304 in its Environment program,
$7,888,380 in its Education program,
$6,302,775 in its Employment program,
$3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program,
$2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and
$1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

So $3 million out of $30 million is  "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source

I'm sure $300,000 per year is a small amount in total research dollars Harvard receives. Besides, there is a history of research not turning out like the grant givers thought it would.


There is also a record of The Joyce Foundation sponsoring academic symposia where all of the papers presented were pro-gun control, and not a single one was pro-rights.  Any research they fund is fundamentally tainted.

Point to me a Joyce Foundation funded study or law review paper that presented guns in a positive light.

Not to mention that, but they pretty much solely fund the Violence Policy Center, which has in the past and continues to advocate for unconstitutional handgun bans.  They even go so far as to advocate banning some guns because they are too accurate, some guns because they are too inaccurate, some guns because they are too big, and some guns because they are too small.  One wonders what sort of mythological "Goldilocks Gun" the VPC would accept as "just right".   The answer, of course, is none.

The total revenue for the VPC in 2010 was $842,371. Of that, $500,000, or 60%, came straight from a grant by the Joyce Foundation,

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.
 
2013-02-28 03:52:04 PM

dr_blasto: 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?


The difference is the general public doesn't give a fark about that.  Really, the only reason we are having the gun debates is because of the mass killings.  It's all the politicians really want to stop.
 
2013-02-28 03:53:12 PM

s2s2s2: Hey, folks, you can go ahead and admit the 2nd applies to "the people" as it says it does, and still be for gun control.


I think many people have a valid argument when they say the 2nd applies only to those in a militia, or only to muzzle-loading muskets.

It's a matter of interpretation.
 
2013-02-28 03:56:43 PM

mrshowrules: dittybopper: 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.

The devil tells some to do it.  Others do it out of a delusional sense of self defense or revenge.

There are many things society can do differently to reduce these types of crimes.  Universal background checks and banning military weapons in society is just low-hanging fruit that does not go against the Constitution.  This proposal (the dumb one) is both impractical and would be anti-Constitutional as well.


I was obviously alluding to the point that mental health is a key factor.......but whatever dude.
 
2013-02-28 03:59:48 PM

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.


csmh.pbworks.com
"Look, I understand the threat, we just can't afford a large standing army!"

"I'm not paying for it! I'm still owed money from the Revolution!"

"Speaking of the Revolution, why don't we do it that way, with a militia?"

"Hey, good idea! Now, what's a good way of saying that?"
 
2013-02-28 04:09:57 PM

Fubini: 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".


Once again. take a look at the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman technically had a legal right to carry a gun around as a private citizen. He also had some sort of sanction from the HOA to act as a "lookout" for trouble.

However, he had no right to confront a private citizen (compounded by the fact the private citizen had done nothing wrong), and it is unlikely he would have done so in the first place had he not been carrying a gun.

He viewed someone as a threat who turned out to not be a threat, but that instituted a chain of events which lead to Martin's death, and technically speaking, under the law, Zimmerman's actions may not constitute a criminal offense.

That is the problem with *many* (I didn't say most) gun owners - they are actually willing to "look for trouble" because they have a gun and are willing to use it, knowing the law backs them up. Is this a healthy society, or a society in which needless deaths happen?
 
2013-02-28 04:10:27 PM

ox45tallboy: 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.

[csmh.pbworks.com image 300x201]
"Look, I understand the threat, we just can't afford a large standing army!"

"I'm not paying for it! I'm still owed money from the Revolution!"

"Speaking of the Revolution, why don't we do it that way, with a militia?"

"Hey, good idea! Now, what's a good way of saying that?"


The founding fathers distrusted a stand army in peace time due to the possibility of the government using them in tyrannical ends.  1812 proved that we need a standing army, but the fear is justified.  It's the reason for the NDAA.  Constitutionally, we can't have a permanent army.
 
2013-02-28 04:20:25 PM

Giltric: Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.


He;s a Scientologist. There's no telling what kind of play he practices at ranges with live fire.
 
2013-02-28 04:22:23 PM

ox45tallboy: s2s2s2: Hey, folks, you can go ahead and admit the 2nd applies to "the people" as it says it does, and still be for gun control.

I think many people have a valid argument when they say the 2nd applies only to those in a militia, or only to muzzle-loading muskets.

It's a matter of interpretation.


It is subject to correct interpretation and incorrect interpretation. These are words of men, not of gods. They were written by men who did extensive writing about what it meant. It wasn't exclusively defense of Tyranny, but that was an important factor in favor of the amendment.

Here is an easy way to figure it out:

"Because the children need to be healthy, the right of the people to buy healthy food shall not be infringed."

This statement only applies to the rights of children to have healthy food, right?
 
2013-02-28 04:23:52 PM

Fail in Human Form: The founding fathers distrusted a stand army in peace time due to the possibility of the government using them in tyrannical ends. 1812 proved that we need a standing army, but the fear is justified. It's the reason for the NDAA. Constitutionally, we can't have a permanent army.


Perhaps no one thought of something like Posse Comitatus during the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Or perhaps they did, but didn't trust whatever people came into power in the next generations to abide by it.
 
2013-02-28 04:27:14 PM

ox45tallboy: Fubini: 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".

Once again. take a look at the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman technically had a legal right to carry a gun around as a private citizen. He also had some sort of sanction from the HOA to act as a "lookout" for trouble.

However, he had no right to confront a private citizen (compounded by the fact the private citizen had done nothing wrong), and it is unlikely he would have done so in the first place had he not been carrying a gun.


He had every right to ask Martin what he was doing, and Martin had every right to say "None of your farkin' business" and keep on walking.

He viewed someone as a threat who turned out to not be a threat, but that instituted a chain of events which lead to Martin's death, and technically speaking, under the law, Zimmerman's actions may not constitute a criminal offense.

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

That is the problem with *many* (I didn't say most) gun owners - they are actually willing to "look for trouble" because they have a gun and are willing to use it, knowing the law backs them up. Is this a healthy society, or a society in which needless deaths happen?

Can't it be both?  Needless deaths are going to happen in any healthy society.  You want to minimize them consistent with a certain amount of freedom, of course, but in any society where you have a substantial right to defend yourself, there are going to be mistakes.
 
2013-02-28 04:28:34 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.

He;s a Scientologist. There's no telling what kind of play he practices at ranges with live fire.


He shoots a Colt Thetan.
 
2013-02-28 04:33:35 PM

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: Giltric: Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.

He;s a Scientologist. There's no telling what kind of play he practices at ranges with live fire.

He shoots a Colt Thetan.


I read that as Bren-Ten.
 
2013-02-28 04:42:54 PM

dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.


So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?
 
2013-02-28 04:46:30 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?


Neither? He was demonstrating that the Joyce Foundation likely has an agenda in its research grants by using the VPC as an example. Didn't think that would be too hard to extrapolate OR that it doesn't matter if you brought it up or not.
 
2013-02-28 04:46:38 PM

Fail in Human Form: 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.


Classic projection, from Fail in Human form. It doesn't get anymore ironic.

Looks like I was right.
 
2013-02-28 04:49:20 PM

justtray: Fail in Human Form: 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.

Classic projection, from Fail in Human form. It doesn't get anymore ironic.

Looks like I was right.


No he was right. You routinely ignore people who disprove your posts or cast doubts on your recklessly broad talking points.
 
2013-02-28 04:52:30 PM

dittybopper: He had every right to ask Martin what he was doing, and Martin had every right to say "None of your farkin' business" and keep on walking.


I'm not trying to turn this into a Trayvon Martin thread. We've had plenty of those already, and will certainly have more as Zimmerman's trial approaches.

In the context of the article, however, do you feel that Zimmerman would have been as likely to have confronted Martin, had he not had a gun? The whole point to allowing your citizens to arm themselves to the teeth as Florida does is to decrease crime because the criminals don't know who has a gun. While I'm not calling Zimmerman a criminal, wouldn't the same apply - he would have no way of knowing if Martin had a gun, therefore he likely would not have confronted him absent his own possession of a gun?

dittybopper: Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat: He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.


How is defending himself against a strange person following him and demanding he stop a "threat"?

dittybopper: but in any society where you have a substantial right to defend yourself, there are going to be mistakes.


This is true. However, in many other societies, these mistakes are not as lethal as they are in a society with high gun ownership.

Would you like to be the one to tell Trayvon's parents, "Well, sorry folks, but that's the price you pay for living in a free society! The only alternative would be tyranny and oppression! Come by and pick up the body tomorrow by 4 or we have to charge you another day's storage, mmmkay?"
 
2013-02-28 04:53:13 PM
dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.
 
2013-02-28 04:54:19 PM

redmid17: justtray: Fail in Human Form: 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.

Classic projection, from Fail in Human form. It doesn't get anymore ironic.

Looks like I was right.

No he was right. You routinely ignore people who disprove your posts or cast doubts on your recklessly broad talking points.


thirded.
 
2013-02-28 04:55:09 PM

redmid17: Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?

Neither? He was demonstrating that the Joyce Foundation likely has an agenda in its research grants by using the VPC as an example. Didn't think that would be too hard to extrapolate OR that it doesn't matter if you brought it up or not.


Wow. You need to alert the press that you have discovered that political groups have agendas.
 
2013-02-28 04:56:37 PM
Ahh I see the gun nuts have a bogey man in the Joyce Foundation.

LALALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU JOYCE JOYCE JOYCE LLALALALAL

Fact is research into guns has to be funded by private foundation and organizations because of the rules against federal funding. If you dont want Joyce to fund research open it up to federal dollars.
 
2013-02-28 05:02:18 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.


The photos have already been made public. the broken nose, the cuts on the back of his head. (of Zimmerman).

As someone who has gotten into multiple fights over the course of his life, rarely do your hands show any damage from punching somone in the face....in the teeth yes, you may cut your knuckles. You may even break your hand if you hit them and get unlucky but lack of cuts on the knuckles doesn't mean Trayvon did not strike Zimmerman.

To be honest I'm not sure at this point if you are trolling or just stupid.

But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?
 
2013-02-28 05:04:27 PM

Witty_Retort: redmid17: Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?

Neither? He was demonstrating that the Joyce Foundation likely has an agenda in its research grants by using the VPC as an example. Didn't think that would be too hard to extrapolate OR that it doesn't matter if you brought it up or not.

Wow. You need to alert the press that you have discovered that political groups have agendas.


You're the one struggling to comprehend that apparently. I was just trying to make it easier for you to understand. Apparently I succeeded.
 
2013-02-28 05:06:50 PM

Giltric: But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?


Soooo... Trayvon had no right to stand his ground against an aggressor?

What if he had been armed? Then could he have stood his ground?
 
2013-02-28 05:07:30 PM

PDid: Ahh I see the gun nuts have a bogey man in the Joyce Foundation.

LALALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU JOYCE JOYCE JOYCE LLALALALAL

Fact is research into guns has to be funded by private foundation and organizations because of the rules against federal funding. If you dont want Joyce to fund research open it up to federal dollars.


I have no problem with federal funding going towards research. They break down car accidents in categories where alchohol was and wasn't involved...they should do the same for firearms but to note whether the murderer was legally allowed to own firearms (ie...criminal history, prior felonies) and a category where the person was legally allowed to own firearms....we should also know if the murdered person was a criminal, criminal enterprise is a dangerous occupation...but it is never listed on the most dangerous professions lists like Crab fishermen and Loggers, etc...

They should do the same for household accidents involving firearms...whether the person whos firearm it was was legally allowed to own the firearm...because criminals do not store their firearms in safes...or safely.
 
2013-02-28 05:07:50 PM
But here we are, in 2013, and even if we don't know exactly what people get up to between 9:35 and 9:37 on a Wednesday night, we do know a lot more about American sex habits.

Oh please. Who takes a full two minutes?
 
2013-02-28 05:08:36 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?

Soooo... Trayvon had no right to stand his ground against an aggressor?

What if he had been armed? Then could he have stood his ground?


You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.
 
2013-02-28 05:21:34 PM

Giltric: ox45tallboy: Giltric: But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?

Soooo... Trayvon had no right to stand his ground against an aggressor?

What if he had been armed? Then could he have stood his ground?

You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.


That seems to be the current thinking. If Z approached M in a threatening manner, Z had SYG justification when he attacked. Once he attacked, M had SYG justification. So, whoever is alive at the end is right.
Sounds lovely.
 
2013-02-28 05:42:36 PM

Tomahawk513: Ned Stark: 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.

And who the hell are you to tell people how to solve their problems?

Well, if I want to solve a math problem, I usually try to work it out.  I use logic and tools such as PEMDAS and a calculator.  If I want to solve a relationship problem, I use active listening and articulate explanation.  If I want to solve a personal problem, I use friends, pastors, therapists, or other tools.  I'm having a hard time seeing what problem suicide solves.  It seems that using suicide to solve a problem would be akin to tearing up a math test because you get to a tough question.


Yeah, sure but what of it? Its THEIR test. They may dispense with it as they please.
 
2013-02-28 05:42:48 PM

Witty_Retort: Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens


So what?  The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns.  Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?
 
2013-02-28 05:48:57 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.


Everything you said is false.

I'm curious as to how these facts change your position on this case.
 
2013-02-28 05:55:19 PM
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," the girl told. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for?' and the man said, 'What are you doing here?' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

The last call took place at 7:12 p.m., Crump said, at about the time that the girl says Martin noticed that he was being followed and took off running. At 7:17 p.m., according to a police report, the first officers arrived on the scene -- a patch of grass between a row of townhomes at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, where Trayvon, 17, was visiting his father -- to find the teen dead from a single gunshot wound to the chest.

So the call with the "friend" started at 7:12pm according to police records, and Trayvon was being followed for 7 minutes? And yet, police showed up, only after being called just five minutes later? That's weird, how did police get there before anything happened and found a dead body?

Or could it be that the truth is that Trayvon didn't actually try to evade anyone, instead wanted to attack the guy he thought was following him, and paid for it with his life?
 
2013-02-28 06:03:42 PM

Giltric: You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.


No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a handgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?
 
2013-02-28 06:06:18 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.

No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a concealedhandgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?


Granted we only have one version of the story, but I doubt that Zimmerman would have gotten all those wounds if he'd had the gun out the entire time. Purely speculation though
 
2013-02-28 06:11:08 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?


I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.
 
2013-02-28 06:12:49 PM

redmid17: Granted we only have one version of the story, but I doubt that Zimmerman would have gotten all those wounds if he'd had the gun out the entire time. Purely speculation though


So.... would things have been better if Florida did not allow concealed weapons by private citizens? Or are you arguing that Zimmerman should have brandished his weapon when he first confronted him?
 
2013-02-28 06:14:04 PM

ox45tallboy: redmid17: Granted we only have one version of the story, but I doubt that Zimmerman would have gotten all those wounds if he'd had the gun out the entire time. Purely speculation though

So.... would things have been better if Florida did not allow concealed weapons by private citizens? Or are you arguing that Zimmerman should have brandished his weapon when he first confronted him?


I'm not arguing anything. There's a good chance that SYG would have applied to both of them at one point or another during the chase. Not really enough information to go off of.

Basically you're not even twisting my words, you're putting them in my mouth. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
2013-02-28 06:20:10 PM

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.


What paranoid fantasy realm do you live in that "everyone" wants you dead and what they are planning to use against you is a pressing concern?
 
2013-02-28 06:30:04 PM

ox45tallboy: No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a handgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?


No.

You've also made it pretty clear that you don't know how the law works with regard to self-defense.
 
2013-02-28 06:33:16 PM

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.



There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there.  Trying to ban them now is pointless.
 
2013-02-28 06:38:09 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?


I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was pointing out that the Joyce Foundation funds extreme anti-gun advocacy, so any research they fund is bound to be suspect.
 
2013-02-28 06:50:17 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.


There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there.  Trying to ban them now is pointless.


Too big to ban.
 
2013-02-28 06:52:22 PM

redmid17: There's a good chance that SYG would have applied to both of them at one point or another during the chase.


That's what I was looking for. Can we consider this to be a datum pointing towards the reality that laws may need to be adjusted to avoid this sort of clusterfark in the future, where the actions of both individuals can be somewhat legally justified, even if the opposing theory of the series of events is absolutely accurate?

In my opinion, the point is that one of the two wound up dead, and the people that feel this was an acceptable outcome have no business in the debate.

When a man can be within the law and still wind up dead, and the actions of the individual doing the shooting are also within the law, then the problem is not the individuals but the law.
 
2013-02-28 06:53:43 PM

Ned Stark: What paranoid fantasy realm do you live in that "everyone" wants you dead and what they are planning to use against you is a pressing concern?


I'm not. I'm pointing out the paranoid fantasies of those that believe they need 30-round magazines and fully automatic weapons to defend themselves against "multiple attackers" and the like.

Pure delusion.
 
2013-02-28 06:55:01 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there. Trying to ban them now is pointless.


Well, that's what they said about fully automatic weapons. Guess how many of those are on the street less than 30 years later? And yet, they're still available for law-abiding citizens that want to jump through the necessary hoops.
 
2013-02-28 06:55:43 PM

Fubini: You've also made it pretty clear that you don't know how the law works with regard to self-defense.


So educate me.
 
2013-02-28 06:59:19 PM

dittybopper: I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was pointing out that the Joyce Foundation funds extreme anti-gun advocacy, so any research they fund is bound to be suspect.


I'm just curious here.

The side of MONEY is definitely with the NRA/gun manufacturers. There is big money to be made in keeping guns legal, as can be evidenced by the huge spike in sales recently.

Who makes money if a study says we should reduce civilian gun ownership?

Kind of like the whole climate-change debate - oil and power companies make money if the studies say global warming is nonexistent, but the scientists working for the government are somehow being labeled as the ones who profit by research saying global warming is man-made?
 
2013-02-28 07:06:34 PM

ox45tallboy: Ow! That was my feelings!: There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there. Trying to ban them now is pointless.

Well, that's what they said about fully automatic weapons. Guess how many of those are on the street less than 30 years later? And yet, they're still available for law-abiding citizens that want to jump through the necessary hoops.



Considering there were 1000s of automatic weapons initially, few of which have 'disappeared' from the street, it's hardly a fair comparison.   Most of them are still around.  1000s =/= 10s of millions.   It's a metal/plastic box with a spring, get over it.
 
2013-02-28 08:08:39 PM

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

It would be good to know how many were shot by police, suicides, or accidents from negligence.


And how many were thug on thug that the police won't even pretend to care about or spend any time on.
 
2013-02-28 08:11:14 PM

Earpj: 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.


You sound like one of the snowbirds who left your liberal utopia to escape the taxes and find a job but want your new home to suffer the same policies that made you leave.
 
2013-02-28 08:12:40 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.

No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a handgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?



If you see someone walking around your neighbors house looking in windows and you follow them to the other side of the house can the person looking in your neighbors windows shoot you as a form of SYG?
 
2013-02-28 08:19:28 PM

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 why are all the laws and "policies" written to only "control" the responsible, law abiding gun owner? There is this thing called the 5th Amendment that exempts criminals and lunatics from any licensing, reporting or registration requirements. They can't be required to incriminate themselves.
 
2013-02-28 08:35:55 PM

Jim_Callahan: I don't think the article is saying that nothing can be derived from current data (which is what a lot of you seem to be getting out of it).

It's saying that if we're really concerned about this, then national, fully-funded real studies with controls and shiat by neutral third parties would do a lot more good than the current cobbling-together of a dozen different data sources that we've got.  Which is true enough.  While there is current data that does say things, it's mostly about crime rates and so on in general and not the actual role of guns, or drugs.

We're probably never going to get what TFA wants, though, because of the DEA and the NRA, who are unreasonable well past the end-point of sanity.


You seem to be saying that Diane, Nancy, Barbara, Chuck, Mike, Rahm, and a gaggle of others are sane reasonable people. Find a way to do tax paid research without involving a politically selected researcher whose money depends on providing the results his owner wants and a lot of us would agree, as long as the stated goal is to only research the negatives expect us to vote against anyone who pushes it. "Turn them in", "Confiscation is on the table". "What's a barrel shroud?" these are the kind of people pushing "Research" and you really expect it to be honest and valid?
 
2013-02-28 08:43:35 PM

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

-Gun Nut


NOT PER CAPITA
 
2013-03-01 04:50:06 AM

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

-Gun Nut

NOT PER CAPITA


You're more likely to experience Jesus giving you a blowjob tonight than to have  clane be intellectually honest about someth- anything.
 
2013-03-01 04:56:49 AM

Giltric: If you see someone walking around your neighbors house looking in windows and you follow them to the other side of the house can the person looking in your neighbors windows shoot you as a form of SYG?


Who says they were looking in windows? And who says you were confronting them to hold them for the police instead of demanding their wallet?

While it's great to look out for your neighbor, sentencing someone to death because you thing (or, if you will, have reason to believe) they might be up to no good is not a sign of a civilized society. Laws permitting one to do so are also not a sign of civilized society.

But wait, Sir Tallboy, you say, I'm not sentencing him to death! If he will merely cooperate and tell me his business, then of course I wouldn't shoot him! Only if he resists my demands would I have reason to open fire! He's obviously up to no good if he doesn't tell me who he is and what he's doing! I should be able to demand that of anyone on public property, or on someone else's property even, not just my own!

Laws which allow a citizen to determine another citizen's business at gunpoint are not good laws, and do not make for a good society. Surely even the pro-gun crowd can agree that you have no right to threaten another person who is not on your property and you have not witnessed committing a crime.

This is why we need this research.
 
2013-03-01 05:02:34 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Considering there were 1000s of automatic weapons initially, few of which have 'disappeared' from the street, it's hardly a fair comparison. Most of them are still around. 1000s =/= 10s of millions. It's a metal/plastic box with a spring, get over it.


Yes, and converting a semi-auto to full auto is merely a matter of filing down a certain pin that would take someone with experience a matter of 20 minutes or so. That doesn't mean most people will do it, no matter how easy it is. Also, movies and video games are available online to those who know how to install software and use a search engine, yet piracy is a small fraction of total movie viewership and video game play.

If you make new sales unavailable, the old ones will eventually go bad. What percentage of time have you ridden in the past year in a car without an airbag?

See, that's the happy medium. If it's only a bit of metal or plastic and a spring, what's the big deal? If there are hundreds of thousands out there that can still be accessed so easily, then why get worked up about it?
 
2013-03-01 08:03:54 AM

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was pointing out that the Joyce Foundation funds extreme anti-gun advocacy, so any research they fund is bound to be suspect.

I'm just curious here.

The side of MONEY is definitely with the NRA/gun manufacturers. There is big money to be made in keeping guns legal, as can be evidenced by the huge spike in sales recently.

Who makes money if a study says we should reduce civilian gun ownership?

Kind of like the whole climate-change debate - oil and power companies make money if the studies say global warming is nonexistent, but the scientists working for the government are somehow being labeled as the ones who profit by research saying global warming is man-made?


Gun control isn't about profit, it's about control.

But who benefits?  Government does.  Government, like all organizations, has a kind of life of its own, and like a population of living organisms, it seeks to expand its range as much as possible.

Increased gun control means more government jobs to administer it, which means more tax revenue is necessary.   Take a look at many of the gun control programs that have expanded government over the years:  The 1934 National Firearms Act.  The 1968 Gun Control Act.  The 1999 National Instant Check System.  The now-defunct 2000 NY CoBIS law.  Gun registration in all areas.

All resulted in an increase in the size of government to implement and administer those laws.

That's who benefits.
 
2013-03-01 08:11:09 AM

ox45tallboy: If you make new sales unavailable, the old ones will eventually go bad. What percentage of time have you ridden in the past year in a car without an airbag?


When was the last time you saw someone riding in an 80 year old car outside of a parade?  I see people shooting guns that old, including semiautomatics, all the time.

Hell, back in the 1980's, I fired a revolver that was manufactured during the Civil War.  Not a reproduction, but an actual Remington 1858 New Army that was manufactured in the early 1860's.

Quality guns last much, much longer than even the most well-built and engineered car.  That's because they are relatively simple devices with fewer parts to break, and fewer maintenance requirements.  A quality gun is one of the few machines you can buy with the full expectation that it will outlast the lifetime of the buyer.
 
2013-03-01 08:53:30 AM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: If you see someone walking around your neighbors house looking in windows and you follow them to the other side of the house can the person looking in your neighbors windows shoot you as a form of SYG?

Who says they were looking in windows? And who says you were confronting them to hold them for the police instead of demanding their wallet?

While it's great to look out for your neighbor, sentencing someone to death because you thing (or, if you will, have reason to believe) they might be up to no good is not a sign of a civilized society. Laws permitting one to do so are also not a sign of civilized society.

But wait, Sir Tallboy, you say, I'm not sentencing him to death! If he will merely cooperate and tell me his business,  Once he swings at me and assaults me then of course I wouldn't shoot him! Only if he resists my demands would I have reason to open fire! He's obviously up to no good if he doesn't tell me who he is and what he's doing! I should be able to demand that of anyone on public property, or on someone else's property even, not just my own!

Laws which allow a citizen to determine another citizen's business at gunpoint are not good laws, and do not make for a good society. Surely even the pro-gun crowd can agree that you have no right to threaten another person who is not on your property and you have not witnessed committing a crime.

This is why we need this research.


Do you have proof that Zimmerman pulled his gun and questioned Trayvon?

There seems to be proof that Zimmerman was assaulted and Trayvon was on top of him.

If Zimmerman had his firearm out why not just shoot him and be done with it? Why go through the rigamarole of letting Trayvon kick his ass for a bit before shooting Trayvon?
 
2013-03-01 10:04:04 AM

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.


There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there.  Trying to ban them now is pointless.

Too big to ban.


Not just that, but too expensive.

Let's say there are 50 million 30 round AR-15 mags in circulation.  They seem to retail around $25 a pop, if you can find them.

Any effective ban *MUST* include confiscation, or it's essentially pointless.  It's also a given that the government must pay you fair compensation if they do enact an effective ban.  The cost would be $1.25 billion.  And that is just 30 round AR-15 magazines.  That's not including AK magazines, or 20 round AR mags, or magazines for other guns that aren't STANAG compliant.
 
2013-03-01 10:14:28 AM

justtray: Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.

Everything you said is false.

I'm curious as to how these facts change your position on this case.


They won't change his position.

It's interesting that all the initial reporting favored the idea that Martin was a 12 year old kid killed by a virulently racist white guy who was 100 lbs heavier and who was taller, and when the actual truth started coming out, it didn't change most people's minds.

Based upon the original reporting, I was thinking "death by mall cop", but as all the details started to come to light, including intentional lies and misrepresentations by the Martin family, I rapidly changed my mind.

Now, I think it was largely a case of testosterone poisoning on the part of Martin.   He was young, thought he was tough, and he wasn't going to let some asshole intimidate him.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:58 PM

ox45tallboy: The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?


Anyone who plans on using a 30 round magazine on me is a murderer.  There is no reason to believe that someone who intends to commit the worst crime there is, will not also commit lesser crimes such as weapon possession, or jaywalking in the process.

Besides, the point is irrelevant in the first place.  The 2nd amendment is first and foremost intended to provide a means for battle.  This is an infringement on that idea.  Go ahead and try your restrictions, but you must do it legally by following the constitutional amendment process as dictated by law, since laws do not trump amendments.
 
2013-03-01 04:09:16 PM

dittybopper: Gun control isn't about profit, it's about control.


Interesting theory. One could say the same thing about practically any government program.

But the whole point of government is to do whatever the hell the people want it to do. The only times government falls are when it isn't doing what the people want it to do.

Right now, a majority of people do not want to live in a society with a bunch of armed individuals running around thinking they are "protecting" themselves and everyone else, as this leads to increased availability of firearms to those who would use them for illicit purposes. Or, if you will, more good guys with guns necessitates more guns, which will automatically lead to more bad guys with guns.

I could also say that having a gun isn't about being in a militia, or personal protection, or keeping the government in check, it's about control. Control over anyone who doesn't agree with you, as intimidation is clearly present. Control over one's own personal feelings of inadequacy, as is evident by those who you know who so fetishize guns that they wear their guns in their own home. Control over their own fears, even.

Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 2nd Amendment right?

And do the people whose lives would be saved get a vote? Is there vote any more or less important than yours?
 
2013-03-01 04:13:00 PM

dittybopper: When was the last time you saw someone riding in an 80 year old car outside of a parade? I see people shooting guns that old, including semiautomatics, all the time.

Hell, back in the 1980's, I fired a revolver that was manufactured during the Civil War. Not a reproduction, but an actual Remington 1858 New Army that was manufactured in the early 1860's.

Quality guns last much, much longer than even the most well-built and engineered car. That's because they are relatively simple devices with fewer parts to break, and fewer maintenance requirements. A quality gun is one of the few machines you can buy with the full expectation that it will outlast the lifetime of the buyer.


I notice you said "gun" and not "magazine", which is what my comment was about. Could it be because even those old guns have to have new replacement magazines after so much use?

And, once again, if there are so many out there, then why not ban the sale of new high-capacity magazines? I hear people argue all of the time that there are so many it won't make a difference. Then go buy one of those, and help insure it stays in your hands and not a bad guy's!
 
2013-03-01 04:25:29 PM

ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?


Let's hear you answer this question.
 
2013-03-01 04:36:42 PM

ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 2nd Amendment right?


I wouldn't because in a couple years you would be making a factless emotional plea for people with 6 round magazines to give them up for a 3 round magazine limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r Christy starts shooting at around the 4:30 mark. she first uses 2 15 round mags then 3 10 round mags then 5 6 round mags and they time it to see the difference reloading makes. 4 seconds is how much longer it takes to shoot 30 rounds from 5 6 round magazines compared to 2 15 round mags.. At around 10:30 they have someone start to run at her when she switches magazines to see if he can stop her. It only takes 1 second for someone with very little knowledge/training to change a magazine and start shooting again.
 
2013-03-01 04:50:24 PM

Giltric: Do you have proof that Zimmerman pulled his gun and questioned Trayvon?


No, I have proof that Zimmerman took his gun to confront him, and had no business confronting him in the first place, and had been told specifically by 911 not to do so.

I've yet to see any scenario in which Martin acted outside the law. I've seen several scenarios in which Zimmerman acted within the law as well.

Whenever two people both act within the law, and one pulls a gun and deliberately shoots the other, the problem is the law. How in the hell do we have laws which permit private citizens to shoot one another, when the other citizen is acting within the law as well?
 
2013-03-01 04:54:14 PM

dittybopper: Let's say there are 50 million 30 round AR-15 mags in circulation.


citation needed, but let's go with that number.

dittybopper: Any effective ban *MUST* include confiscation, or it's essentially pointless.


It would include confiscation - from those who sell them illegally, or use their weapons illegally. Just like with fully automatic weapons, the decreased supply makes them more likely to be held by private, law-abiding citizens and not by criminals. Private, law-abiding citizens may even be tempted to go to the black market for these things, which will take them off the black market and out of the hands of criminals.
 
2013-03-01 04:57:37 PM

dittybopper: Now, I think it was largely a case of testosterone poisoning on the part of Martin

Zimmerman. He was young, thought he was tough, he had a gun, and he wasn't going to let some asshole intimidate him kid walk around his neighborhood without showing him who was boss in these parts.

FTFY.
 
2013-03-01 05:00:05 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Besides, the point is irrelevant in the first place. The 2nd amendment is first and foremost intended to provide a means for battle. This is an infringement on that idea. Go ahead and try your restrictions, but you must do it legally by following the constitutional amendment process as dictated by law, since laws do not trump amendments.


I am all in favor of basically unlimited private ownership of muzzle-loading muskets, which are the definition of "arms" when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
 
2013-03-01 05:04:08 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Let's hear you answer this question.


My answer is based on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in which "arms" were muzzle-loading muskets. Technology has creeped the 2nd Amendment way too far one way.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms by those who can show they are not a criminal and can possess and use one responsibly. So in answer to my own question, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment, including the banning of fully automatic weapons, and, depending on what real, scientific research shows, the banning of new sales of high-capacity magazines.

Your turn.
 
2013-03-01 05:06:38 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

Let's hear you answer this question.


Sorry, I didn't realize you had changed the question. If you think it is fair in debate to change the question to something completely different, and demand the other person answer that question, but still refuse to answer the original question, then I'm sorry for you.
 
2013-03-01 05:16:15 PM

Giltric: I wouldn't because in a couple years you would be making a factless emotional plea for people with 6 round magazines to give them up for a 3 round magazine limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r Christy starts shooting at around the 4:30 mark. she first uses 2 15 round mags then 3 10 round mags then 5 6 round mags and they time it to see the difference reloading makes. 4 seconds is how much longer it takes to shoot 30 rounds from 5 6 round magazines compared to 2 15 round mags.. At around 10:30 they have someone start to run at her when she switches magazines to see if he can stop her. It only takes 1 second for someone with very little knowledge/training to change a magazine and start shooting again.


The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed. It keeps moving it farther and farther one direction, so that rather than have every home with a muzzle-loading musket above the fireplace, we have nutbags with dozens of rifles and handguns praying for someone to give them an excuse to use them. We have individuals with serious mental issues that really and truly desire to take another human life legally, and even put themselves into harm's way purposefully in order to have that opportunity (I am NOT talking about Zimmerman right here, but about other people). We have those who stockpile firearms specifically in order to use them against law enforcement. We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.

Any person who believes the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear weapons of war designed to kill massive numbers of people in a matter of seconds, weapons not even conceived of in the day in which the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, is sadly delusional.

Technology, not the intent of the Founders, pushed the definition of "arms" to where it was now. People that want to put reasonable limits on personal firearm usage do not believe themselves to be limiting the 2nd Amendment, but to be merely putting that line somewhat closer to where it was when it was originally drawn.
 
2013-03-01 05:50:06 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: I wouldn't because in a couple years you would be making a factless emotional plea for people with 6 round magazines to give them up for a 3 round magazine limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r Christy starts shooting at around the 4:30 mark. she first uses 2 15 round mags then 3 10 round mags then 5 6 round mags and they time it to see the difference reloading makes. 4 seconds is how much longer it takes to shoot 30 rounds from 5 6 round magazines compared to 2 15 round mags.. At around 10:30 they have someone start to run at her when she switches magazines to see if he can stop her. It only takes 1 second for someone with very little knowledge/training to change a magazine and start shooting again.

The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed. It keeps moving it farther and farther one direction, so that rather than have every home with a muzzle-loading musket above the fireplace, we have nutbags with dozens of rifles and handguns praying for someone to give them an excuse to use them. We have individuals with serious mental issues that really and truly desire to take another human life legally, and even put themselves into harm's way purposefully in order to have that opportunity (I am NOT talking about Zimmerman right here, but about other people). We have those who stockpile firearms specifically in order to use them against law enforcement. We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.

Any person who believes the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear weapons of war designed to kill massive numbers of people in a matter of seconds, weapons not even conceived of in the day in which the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, is sadly delusional.

Technology, not the intent of the Founders, pushed the de ...


The 1st moves with technology, so do other amendments. Don't give them any excuses to limit our protection against unlawful searches and seizures of our cell phones and computers. What kind of farking boot licking nitwit are you anyway? Ooooh technology derp derka hurr.

You seem to be getting rather desperate in your attempt to force people to stop liking things that you don't like.
 
2013-03-01 06:04:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b2Upjn5DR0o

thread probably almost dead, but i'm just going to leave this here for discussion if anyone cares

feel free to skip to 1:45 for actual people talking
 
2013-03-01 06:05:30 PM
well crap apparently someone already posted that. sorry...
 
2013-03-01 06:20:38 PM

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

Let's hear you answer this question.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had changed the question. If you think it is fair in debate to change the question to something completely different, and demand the other person answer that question, but still refuse to answer the original question, then I'm sorry for you.


Yeah, I figured you'd dodge the question.  In fact, that's the only option for someone taking your position in this debate.

You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Let's hear you answer this question.

My answer is based on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in which "arms" were muzzle-loading muskets. Technology has creeped the 2nd Amendment way too far one way.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms by those who can show they are not a criminal and can possess and use one responsibly. So in answer to my own question, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment, including the banning of fully automatic weapons, and, depending on what real, scientific research shows, the banning of new sales of high-capacity magazines.

Your turn.


In fact, the notion that there were no repeating arms at that time is completely false.  The founding fathers were well aware of them, as the technology was about a century old by that time.

from wiki-
The Cookson, a lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on the world stage beginning in the 17th century. The revolutionary mechanism at the heart of the Cookson repeater dates from 1680 and was originally known in Europe as the Lorenzoni System, named for Italian gunsmith Michele Lorenzoni of Florence. Long arms utilizing this system were produced in other European nations and in the United States until about 1849. The Cookson rifle dates from 1750 and features a two-chamber horizontally-mounted rotating drum. Loading was accomplished by lowering a lever which was mounted on the left side of the rifle. This caused the chambers to line up with two magazines contained within the buttstock and allowed one .55 caliber lead ball and a 60-grain powder charge to fall into their respective chambers. When the lever was returned to its original position, the ball dropped into the chamber, and the powder charge lined up behind it. At the same time, the hammer was cocked, the pan was primed, and the frizzen was lowered. After firing the rifle, the process could be repeated until the two magazines, with their seven-shot capacities, were empty. Although other breech loading rifles were introduced in later years, the Cookson-type long arms were unique in their ability to fire multiple shots without reloading. This feature would later become widespread, but for a time, these repeaters represented the pinnacle in firearms development.
 
2013-03-01 06:44:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

Let's hear you answer this question.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had changed the question. If you think it is fair in debate to change the question to something completely different, and demand the other person answer that question, but still refuse to answer the original question, then I'm sorry for you.

Yeah, I figured you'd dodge the question.  In fact, that's the only option for someone taking your position in this debate.

You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Let's hear you answer this question.

My answer is based on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in which "arms" were muzzle-loading muskets. Technology has creeped the 2nd Amendment way too far one way.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms by those who can show they are not a criminal and can possess and use one responsibly. So in answer to my own question, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment, including the banning of fully automatic weapons, and, depending on what real, scientific research shows, the banning of new sales of high-capacity magazines.

Your turn.

In fact, the notion that there were no repeating arms at that time is completely false.  The founding fathers were well aware of them, as the technology was about a century old by that time.

from wiki-
The Cookson, a lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on ...


Except for the fact that before the advent of the industrial age and the ability to mass manufacture parts for weapons, the Cookson Rifle was a rarity which took a labor intensive process to manufacture. Looking at a historical example, it wasn't the innovation or ability to even lay down heavy volumes of fire that made the Henry Rifle the preferred weapon of the North in later years of the Civil War, it was the ability of the North to mass manufacture parts and bullets to supply their troops with.
 
2013-03-01 07:17:01 PM

BronyMedic: Except for the fact that before the advent of the industrial age and the ability to mass manufacture parts for weapons,


Are you actually arguing that the founding fathers didn't have enough historical examples to realize that rates of, and quality of manufacturing increased as time moved on?

Can we please stop pretending these people were only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen?
 
2013-03-01 08:14:41 PM
 
2013-03-01 08:26:02 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Are you actually arguing that the founding fathers didn't have enough historical examples to realize that rates of, and quality of manufacturing increased as time moved on?

Can we please stop pretending these people were only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen?


You're ignoring the point I made completely. Weapons like the Cookson Rifle, Nock Gun, and other "volly" type weapons were historical rarities in their day. Maybe a handful existed at any given time because of the sheer dificulty of producing them one by one with no standardization or mechanization that the industrial revolution brought.

It's not "pretending" these people were idiots. It's pointing out they were realists of their day. The constitution was written before the idea of mass production of even rifled barrels took place. Armies still lined up in nice, orderly rows to be shot down by weapons that were - on average, accurate to less than 100 meters, and the idea of cowardace still meant something to the colonial powers that controlled the US.

Arguing that the Founding Fathers took the Cookson Rifle, a rather rare and complex design for the time, into consideration when they wrote the amendment the way they did, without even mentioning it in their writings at all is a stretch at best. Especially since it was common, at the time, for Militas to keep what in their day were "weapons of mass destruction", artillery cannons, in private hands.
 
2013-03-01 10:36:14 PM

Giltric: The 1st moves with technology, so do other amendments. Don't give them any excuses to limit our protection against unlawful searches and seizures of our cell phones and computers. What kind of farking boot licking nitwit are you anyway? Ooooh technology derp derka hurr.

You seem to be getting rather desperate in your attempt to force people to stop liking things that you don't like.


Nice move with the "boot lickers" phrase.

And it's a good point; "speech" when it was written into the 1st did not include massive distribution to millions of people the way it does now. One's "papers" did not include one's computer files.

Because of that, you have to look at what the Founders' intent was, not just when it was written, but also how it was understood by those who voted to pass it. As far as "speech" goes in the first, I think most people believe the definition to mean "the ability to impart ideas, even unpopular and offensive ideas, to whomever cares to listen." So what does the word "arms" mean in the 2nd?

IMHO, it means, "armament necessary to defend oneself and one's home, as well as the armament necessary to defend one's country in a time of need."

However, even if we do eventually agree on that (or something similar, or even something different), then we're stuck looking at what exactly that "armament necessary for X" consists of. Does one need a fully automatic AK-47 to defend one's person and one's home, or might a lever-action Winchester shotgun suffice? Do you need to walk around with a S&W .357 strapped to your hip in order to be ready to defend your country, or is leaving it at home perhaps acceptable?

Perhaps the founders had a reason for being so vague, or phrasing things in such a way that they could be interpreted in different ways. Perhaps they did not believe the wording to be vague at all.
 
2013-03-01 11:01:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, I figured you'd dodge the question. In fact, that's the only option for someone taking your position in this debate.


This from someone who answered the question I posed by asking a different one; I answered the question I originally posed, and you say I am "dodging the question"? Sir, your courtesy and debate skills are sorely lacking.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.


You can't compare my opinions on two different subjects and call me inconsistent when the subjects are different. Hence the phrase, "apples and oranges". My affinity for and consumption of alcohol is simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And, very Karl Rove-like, you accuse me of dodging the question when I won't talk about what you attempted to change the subject to, all the while you have refused to answer the question yourself!

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In fact, the notion that there were no repeating arms at that time is completely false. The founding fathers were well aware of them, as the technology was about a century old by that time.


If you had followed the wiki links, you would have found even more ammunition (*cough*) for what you believe your point to be:

Another John Cookson, who was also a gunmaker, is known to have worked in America. He is recorded in Boston, Mass. between 1701 and 1762. In 1756 he advertised repeating firearms firing nine shots in the local paper, the Boston Gazette. It is probable that he was related to the John Cookson who worked in London.

I can easily counter this by looking at the sheer volume of technological innovations for which no current law exists, or laws are having to be interpreted in broad terms in order to address. Even in very modern times (as in, the past few decades), look at the sheer number of technological innovations relative to firearms that are clearly outside the bounds of the intent of the law, although within the letter. For example, look at the Slide Fire bump stock, which allows someone to shoot an AR-15 in continuous fire mode by using the recoil to bump the trigger back and forth. Yet fully automatic weapons were banned only two decades before devices like this were commercially available! And the principle of bump fire goes back far before the ban was even considered!

The point is that you can't point to the fact that when the Bill of Rights was approved, there were weapons in uncommon use with a sort of loading mechanism that allowed several shots to be fired before reloading, and say therefore the Founders must have intended for semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines to be available to all citizens to carry around with them everywhere they went. That's just silly.
 
2013-03-01 11:06:54 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Are you actually arguing that the founding fathers didn't have enough historical examples to realize that rates of, and quality of manufacturing increased as time moved on?

Can we please stop pretending these people were only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen?


Only if you agree we are still only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen.

Look at how much judges have to struggle with applying current laws to newer technology, as the law has not yet caught up with technological advances.

Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent? I can foresee that being a possibility. How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use? I can foresee that, too, but right now, it either doesn't exist or isn't commercially available, hence there are no laws against it.
 
2013-03-02 12:13:00 AM

Generation_D: 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.


You sound paranoid and violent.

dittybopper: 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.


In a thread about how there's bad gun research with one side saying that there's a ban on research due to the poor quality of data collection and extrapolation the other side is citing badly done research studies... and they think it proves their point?

Witty_Retort: So $3 million out of $30 million is "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source


Where did you get 30 million regarding gun control advocacy? You're comparing separate numbers. Hmmm.. you looking for work cranking out gun control studies?

Witty_Retort: Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?


VPC is the lobbyist group they directly fund. So they pay people to create the research papers that the other side then advocates with.

You're trying to play semantics but you're not doing it elegantly.

Witty_Retort: Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.


When you're so wrong on such a documented case you should consider your capability to do research severely lacking and review your entire worldview.

ox45tallboy: The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed.


Do you really believe the Founders believed that they were at a technological zenith and nothing better than a flintlock would ever come to exist?

ox45tallboy: We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.


Typically they use designs functionally no different than those from only a few decades after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

ox45tallboy: Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent?


The basis for the law is already in the existing laws dealing with theft and violation of privacy.

How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use?

How would that imperative be any different than for any other drug?
 
2013-03-02 02:23:32 AM

Mrbogey: Do you really believe the Founders believed that they were at a technological zenith and nothing better than a flintlock would ever come to exist?


Of course not. I believe that they, like modern politicians, legislate for the present. They also (with appreciable forethought) left in ways of changing their own ways of doing things in case something happened that they weren't thinking of. They also left in place a system of government called "elections" that allows people to choose representatives to represent their interests in government.

Mrbogey: Typically they use designs functionally no different than those from only a few decades after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.


That's the equivalent of saying a typical modern computer uses designs functionally no different from UNIVAC in the 1950's. Yet there was no reason to legislate anything regarding computer crimes in the 1950's, so why do so now?

Mrbogey: The basis for the law is already in the existing laws dealing with theft and violation of privacy.


Really? Tell that to those who datamine your web searches. Also, tell that to Google and Apple who keep track of your cell phone's location without fully disclosing they are doing so, and in some cases, telling you they are not. There are still no laws making this sort of practice illegal.

Mrbogey: How would that imperative be any different than for any other drug?


Because we have separate legislative definitions of every drug. This is how companies who manufacture "incense" and "spice" for sale at head shops get away with it - they already have the next few formulas ready to go as soon as the current one is outlawed - i.e., as soon as legislation catches up with technology.
 
2013-03-02 07:27:40 AM

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

You can't compare my opinions on two different subjects and call me inconsistent when the subjects are different. Hence the phrase, "apples and oranges". My affinity for and consumption of alcohol is simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And, very Karl Rove-like, you accuse me of dodging the question when I won't talk about what you attempted to change the subject to, all the while you have refused to answer the question yourself!


I'm not changing the subject at all.  It's a point about a willingness to restrict the public from access to "unnecessary" items which are directly involved in preventable deaths.   You are apparently unwilling to speak against alcohol, which is solely for entertainment and kills 80,000 people per year, and you're very willing to speak against guns which are for self defense and kill 12,000 people per year.  This demonstrates that your concern for life is secondary to your hatred for guns.

To argue that we cannot compare them because they are "apples and oranges" is asinine, and frankly a tired, traditional fark dodge.  What good would comparisons ever be if we were only permitted to compare identical subjects?

ox45tallboy: Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent? I can foresee that being a possibility. How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use? I can foresee that, too, but right now, it either doesn't exist or isn't commercially available, hence there are no laws against it.


Except guns actually existed at the time, they just exist in a more advanced form now than they did.  We have no form of telepathy on the market at this time, and we have no form of cognitive enhancements available at this time.
 
2013-03-02 03:44:38 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not changing the subject at all. It's a point about a willingness to restrict the public from access to "unnecessary" items which are directly involved in preventable deaths. You are apparently unwilling to speak against alcohol, which is solely for entertainment and kills 80,000 people per year, and you're very willing to speak against guns which are for self defense and kill 12,000 people per year. This demonstrates that your concern for life is secondary to your hatred for guns.

To argue that we cannot compare them because they are "apples and oranges" is asinine, and frankly a tired, traditional fark dodge. What good would comparisons ever be if we were only permitted to compare identical subjects?


It's simply not a valid comparison, and irrelevant to the discussion. And it's rather silly for you to accuse me of "dodging the question" when you are the one who still refuses to answer mine.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: and we have no form of cognitive enhancements available at this time.


The manufacturers of Adderall would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-02 05:12:15 PM

ox45tallboy: They also left in place a system of government called "elections" that allows people to choose representatives to represent their interests in government.


Really? You're going to talk down to me when you're the one who is ignorant?

ox45tallboy: That's the equivalent of saying a typical modern computer uses designs functionally no different from UNIVAC in the 1950's. Yet there was no reason to legislate anything regarding computer crimes in the 1950's, so why do so now?


Well either you're ignorant of how computers work or you're ignorant of how guns work. A modern computer using silicon and transistors with a GUI interface is different than a vacuum tube operated computational machine. Meanwhile a revolver built in 2013 functions almost exactly like a revolver built in 1836 with minor refinements for accuracy, ergonomics, and safety. You could literally drop a revolver from 2013 into the hands of a person from 1836 and vice versa and there would be functional confusion.

ox45tallboy: Really? Tell that to those who datamine your web searches. Also, tell that to Google and Apple who keep track of your cell phone's location without fully disclosing they are doing so, and in some cases, telling you they are not. There are still no laws making this sort of practice illegal.


You didn't mention those you mentioned directly pulling information from a person. And all of those other things you just mentioned in your laborious attempt to move the goalposts are all based upon agreements you made or public space activities. Vastly different than taking things from your person.

ox45tallboy: Because we have separate legislative definitions of every drug.


But the legislative basis is still there.

You're just not getting this because you're willfully trying to not educate yourself on the subjects you pontificate upon.
 
2013-03-02 08:55:10 PM

Mrbogey: Really? You're going to talk down to me when you're the one who is ignorant?


No, I'm going to talk down to you when it is you who stooped to calling me ignorant instead of rationally debating the topic.

Mrbogey: Well either you're ignorant of how computers work or you're ignorant of how guns work. A modern computer using silicon and transistors with a GUI interface is different than a vacuum tube operated computational machine. Meanwhile a revolver built in 2013 functions almost exactly like a revolver built in 1836 with minor refinements for accuracy, ergonomics, and safety. You could literally drop a revolver from 2013 into the hands of a person from 1836 and vice versa and there would be functional confusion.


Wow. You just called me ignorant of the way computers work.

Mrbogey: But the legislative basis is still there.

You're just not getting this because you're willfully trying to not educate yourself on the subjects you pontificate upon.


That's interesting. Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.

Look dude, I'm not in favor of taking up guns from people. Go have that debate with someone who is. I am merely in favor of rational limitations to private ownership of guns - such as banning fully automatic weapons. Any limitation we enact should be done by eliminating only new sales, and letting already existing weapons/magazines gradually decline on their own.
 
2013-03-02 09:41:29 PM

ox45tallboy: No, I'm going to talk down to you when it is you who stooped to calling me ignorant instead of rationally debating the topic.


First, I asked you to consider the notion that it'd be ridiculous to believe that the founders didn't consider technology updates. You then came back with the smarmy "something called an election" prattle.

I want to discuss the issue with rationality. You apparently want to win the argument and you don't care what card you have to deal to "win".

ox45tallboy: Wow. You just called me ignorant of the way computers work.


Actually I posited an OR statement. You made a fallacious comparison which betrays a lack of understanding of one or the other.

ox45tallboy: Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.


No, it's not. The mislabeling is intended to slow down the regulatory catch but once the feds realize the scam they can put it on a schedule list. State's usually do so first while the feds get around to it. I believe Canada added it to their Schedule listing already.

ox45tallboy: I am merely in favor of rational limitations to private ownership of guns - such as banning fully automatic weapons.


So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.

ox45tallboy: Any limitation we enact should be done by eliminating only new sales, and letting already existing weapons/magazines gradually decline on their own.


In other words, a limitation not to stop crime but to fool gun owners into losing via attrition.

Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further.
 
2013-03-02 11:47:42 PM

Mrbogey: First, I asked you to consider the notion that it'd be ridiculous to believe that the founders didn't consider technology updates. You then came back with the smarmy "something called an election" prattle.

I want to discuss the issue with rationality. You apparently want to win the argument and you don't care what card you have to deal to "win".


Actually, this isn't about "winning." I'm genuinely curious about other people's opinions. I believe that I have come to my own opinions through rational thought, and I believe that most other people have come to their own conclusions through rational thought. I don't believe that you have convinced me at this point that your opinion has a sound, rational basis, but I am continuing this conversation because I do believe that you might eventually convince me of that.

Mrbogey: Actually I posited an OR statement. You made a fallacious comparison which betrays a lack of understanding of one or the other.


I don't see that as fallacious. I think that my dismissal of your allegation that I do not understand computers is not fair to the debate. The computers did exist, yet computer crime did not.

Mrbogey: ox45tallboy: Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.

No, it's not. The mislabeling is intended to slow down the regulatory catch but once the feds realize the scam they can put it on a schedule list. State's usually do so first while the feds get around to it. I believe Canada added it to their Schedule listing already.


That doesn't account for the fact that the manufacturers have more formulas ready to go as soon as these are outlawed. That was the point I was trying to make - that technology outpaces legislation.

Mrbogey: So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.


No, that isn't what I said at all, and you know that. However, FA weapons are rarely used in crime nowadays since they simply aren't available.

Mrbogey: Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further


Whoa, hang on a second. I have NEVER, in any thread, acted in that way towards gun control. Please look back over what I have posted, then Google my username with site:fark.com and look at those posts. I don't believe you can look at my posts (except towards obvious trolls) and come to that conclusion.

I really do believe that I have reached my conclusions based on rational assessment of the facts available. However, I accept that I may not have had all of the available data at hand when I reached those conclusions, and that is why I continue to talk about it. I am accepting of the fact that I may be wrong, but I really do believe I have a rational basis for my conclusions.
 
2013-03-03 01:27:39 AM

ox45tallboy: Mrbogey: So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.

No, that isn't what I said at all, and you know that. However, FA weapons are rarely used in crime nowadays since they simply aren't available.


There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk.

ox45tallboy: Mrbogey: Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further

Whoa, hang on a second. I have NEVER, in any thread, acted in that way towards gun control. Please look back over what I have posted, then Google my username with site:fark.com and look at those posts. I don't believe you can look at my posts (except towards obvious trolls) and come to that conclusion.

I really do believe that I have reached my conclusions based on rational assessment of the facts available. However, I accept that I may not have had all of the available data at hand when I reached those conclusions, and that is why I continue to talk about it. I am accepting of the fact that I may be wrong, but I really do believe I have a rational basis for my conclusions.


That's pretty much what Feinstein and Lautenberg said.
 
2013-03-03 03:22:26 PM

redmid17: There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk


You just posted a statistic that proved my point - that FA weapons are rarely used in crimes. The hoops one has to jump through in order to obtain one make it so that very, very few are available to criminals on the black market.

redmid17: That's pretty much what Feinstein and Lautenberg said.


Ummm....okay.
 
2013-03-03 05:24:20 PM

ox45tallboy: redmid17: There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk

You just posted a statistic that proved my point - that FA weapons are rarely used in crimes. The hoops one has to jump through in order to obtain one make it so that very, very few are available to criminals on the black market.


I was saying they aren't used in crime, not rarely. The ATF director actually testified that he only knew of ten that had ever occurred and they were almost entirely a result of an NFA weapon owner not filing the paperwork before transporting the gun across state lines. I wasn't trying to undermine your point. Even when the NFA weapon stock was rising before the 86 ban, they were not used in crime.
 
Displayed 262 of 262 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report