Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Well, for example, it's pistols that are responsible for the majority of gun incidents, so curbs on assault rifles are more or less pointless.

If you're going to try to design legislation to reduce the danger of guns, it would make sense to tackle the most dangerous type.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Well, for example, it's pistols that are responsible for the majority of gun incidents, so curbs on assault rifles are more or less pointless.

If you're going to try to design legislation to reduce the danger of guns, it would make sense to tackle the most dangerous type.

True dat. Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Well, for example, it's pistols that are responsible for the majority of gun incidents, so curbs on assault rifles are more or less pointless.

If you're going to try to design legislation to reduce the danger of guns, it would make sense to tackle the most dangerous type.

Pistols are easier to conceal than rifles so criminals can carry them and use them more easily. Pistols aren't any more or less dangerous than rifles.

What measures do you think could be taken to make pistols less likely to be used by criminals?

 whembly wrote:
... ...
What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
... ...
What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

 whembly wrote:

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

Opinion.

its nice to have options.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.

The CDC is a nonpartisan federal agency is you won't trust their reports whose reports do you trust?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.

The CDC is a nonpartisan federal agency is you won't trust their reports whose reports do you trust?

One who actually gets decent results. If your result is that uncertain then you cannot draw anything from it other than you need to improve your methodology or data or both.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Myth.

A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.

Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.

The CDC is a nonpartisan federal agency is you won't trust their reports whose reports do you trust?

One who actually gets decent results. If your result is that uncertain then you cannot draw anything from it other than you need to improve your methodology or data or both.

Gun crimes generate police investigations that are easily tracked and reported. Defensive gun uses don't have to generate any such paper trail. You'll never get precise results when you are collecting anecdotal evidence.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Even accounting for all that the number of defensive gun uses greatly out numbers the 10k or so gun homicides we average per year. Which was whbly's point that more guns are used to protect people than to hurt people, hence improving safety by keeping people safe from harm.

This.

We know those statistic exists and that study both admits that the # of occurances is not insignificant and more research is needed to tighten down those methodologies.

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Clinton probably will concentrate on Trump's issues as a liar, racist bigot and serial failure in business (four bankruptcies, Trump Uni etc.)

On foreign policy she will just paint him as naive and completely inexperienced.

I think we got a preview of her likely approach in her "foreign policy" speech a little while ago - you don't have to do anything with Trump other than republish some of the things he's said, and make sure the voters know he said them.

I'm hoping some superPAC does nothing but cut together his own words into themed commercials: "Trump's greatest misogynist hits", "Trump's greatest racist hits", etc.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right

No disagreement here. 2E is apparently a big deal to some people.

The accident/suicide/crime of passion rate is higher than the "keeps you safe" rate. That's what I was getting at.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right

No disagreement here.

The accident/suicide/crime of passion rate by guns is higher than the "keeps you safe" rate. That's what I was getting at.

Citation is needed for that...

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

Cool opinion.

Still doesn't justify further erosion to 2nd Amendment rights...

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

Prestor Jon wrote:

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

A loud, dark, cramped nightclub filled with armed people shooting at whatever they think is going on does not strike me as a good situation.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

A loud, dark, cramped nightclub filled with armed people shooting at whatever they think is going on does not strike me as a good situation.

Yeah, what if someone decides to shoot up a mall. He starts shooting. A concealed carrying person pulls out a pistol, starts shooting at the shooter. Another concealed carrying person notices the first CC shooting, so starts shooting at him, and so on. Also, any police at the area would shoot everyone holding a gun, killing those who try to help.

I love how when something like this happens people scream "More guns!" Cause you know everyone who owns a gun is a cool and collected cowboy capable of a rational desicion at the drop of a hat to be the hero when the need arises.

I know one donkey-cave who carries a pecker extension on his hip 24/7 because he used to live in Pheonix and black people are scary. I would trust him to save my life as far as I could throw his lardbutt.

lonestarr777 wrote:
I love how when something like this happens people scream "More guns!" Cause you know everyone who owns a gun is a cool and collected cowboy capable of a rational desicion at the drop of a hat to be the hero when the need arises.

I know one donkey-cave who carries a pecker extension on his hip 24/7 because he used to live in Pheonix and black people are scary. I would trust him to save my life as far as I could throw his lardbutt.

Really? i honestly only ever hear "LESS GUNS!" the second these things happens.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.

Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right

No disagreement here.

The accident/suicide/crime of passion rate by guns is higher than the "keeps you safe" rate. That's what I was getting at.

Citation is needed for that...

Considering defensive gun use estimates vary from 61,000 to 5 million per year, this is going to be difficult.

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Even accounting for all that the number of defensive gun uses greatly out numbers the 10k or so gun homicides we average per year. Which was whbly's point that more guns are used to protect people than to hurt people, hence improving safety by keeping people safe from harm.

This.

We know those statistic exists and that study both admits that the # of occurances is not insignificant and more research is needed to tighten down those methodologies.

Sadly the funding for continuing the research was voted away after this initial study.

As things stand, there is no immediate prospect of improving the methodology.

 Ustrello wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.

They don't?
http://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/10/guards-hands-didnt-even-shake-as-she-shot-gunman/
This didn't happen?
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20100527/NEWS/305279879
What bout this?
http://www.heraldcourier.com/news/gunman-killed-at-sullivan-central/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html
Guess this didn't happen either?
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2013/05/clackamas_town_center_shooting_84.html

Still want to stand by "CC people don't stop mass shootings"??

I got more...

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.

They don't?
http://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/10/guards-hands-didnt-even-shake-as-she-shot-gunman/
This didn't happen?
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20100527/NEWS/305279879
What bout this?
http://www.heraldcourier.com/news/gunman-killed-at-sullivan-central/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html
Guess this didn't happen either?
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2013/05/clackamas_town_center_shooting_84.html

Still want to stand by "CC people don't stop mass shootings"??

I got more...

Before you "get more" it would be a good idea to check the stories to see that they say what you apparently think they say.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2013/05/clackamas_town_center_shooting_84.html

casts doubt on the "stop" story. Best to read the whole thing and not just take the headline.

I haven't looked at the other two.

The real thing is though, why does America have mass shootings in the first place?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.

The Pulse security guard was armed.

So?

So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.

An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.

Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.

They don't?
http://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/10/guards-hands-didnt-even-shake-as-she-shot-gunman/
This didn't happen?
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20100527/NEWS/305279879
What bout this?
http://www.heraldcourier.com/news/gunman-killed-at-sullivan-central/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html
Guess this didn't happen either?
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2013/05/clackamas_town_center_shooting_84.html

Still want to stand by "CC people don't stop mass shootings"??

I got more...

Before you "get more" it would be a good idea to check the stories to see that they say what you apparently think they say.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2013/05/clackamas_town_center_shooting_84.html

casts doubt on the "stop" story. Best to read the whole thing and not just take the headline.

I did. Point stands.

I haven't looked at the other two.

please look at the other three.

The real thing is though, why does America have mass shootings in the first place?

Why is there crime?

EDIT: here's one site's attempt to collect this kind of data:
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/