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.
When i think of a massacre i think of more than 5 victims. I think that may be the definition (not sure).
School massacres, normal massacres any is too many in a well ordered society.
I just find that when people try to help solve the issue (of gun control), the discussion gets taken onto weird tangents. There is a serious problem in the US , you either try and fix the problem or stick your head in the sand and claim govt. conspiracies.
If nothing is said or changed this will keep happening , personally i think if something like this happens there should be a complete media blackout on the offenders name, but then (sigh) that affects freedom of speech doesn't it. Remove the fame element and maybe you will reduce the number of instances.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Kanluwen wrote: Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.
Why? The percentage of law-abiding citizens who legally obtain guns and then proceed to engage in mass shootings is astronomically low.
So... if we ban the #1 weapon most often used in homicides, there will be fewer homicides?
No.
If we ban weapon X we might see a derivation in homicide rates involving weapon X. If weapon X is very popular this might entail a decrease total homicide.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.
Why? The percentage of law-abiding citizens who legally obtain guns and then proceed to engage in mass shootings is astronomically low.
For the record, the sandy hook shooter tried to acquire a weapon and was blocked. THEN he killed his mother for her guns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/21 07:33:13
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Bullockist wrote: In Amorica do you legally have to keep your guns in a gunsafe? You have to here , i think it would go a long way to stopping kids stealing guns if you did.
Not in any venue I know of (though I'm not an all-encompassing expert).
That being said, all of the gun owners I personally know (6 or 7 I guess) keep theirs in a safe. My wife's ex has this giant one the size of an industrial fridge for his arsenal. He's a super big hunter, and he goes through several licenses a year, which I guess have a bag limit - after he uses his shotgun license, he uses a crossbow license, then a high power rifle license, etc - then he repeats the process with his non-hunting friends licenses he has them acquire.
But yeah, a safe is the way to go. I've been wanting to get a target pistol for a long time, and would get the safe before the gun.
I think the closest we came to mandating firearms storage was back in 1994 (or was it 96?) when we talked about mandating trigger locks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/21 08:04:44
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: That's true... the recent NRA activities are simply baffling from a PR perspective.
Richard Feldman, formerly a member of the NRA and now chairman of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and strong critic of the NRA once said "the NRA would rather fight than win".
It was actually through reading a lot of his commentary that I started to see the differentiate between the balls out lunacy of the NRA and the actual beliefs of gun owners.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: That's true... the recent NRA activities are simply baffling from a PR perspective.
Richard Feldman, formerly a member of the NRA and now chairman of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and strong critic of the NRA once said "the NRA would rather fight than win".
It was actually through reading a lot of his commentary that I started to see the differentiate between the balls out lunacy of the NRA and the actual beliefs of gun owners.
So... if we ban the #1 weapon most often used in homicides, there will be fewer homicides?
No.
If we ban weapon X we might see a derivation in homicide rates involving weapon X. If weapon X is very popular this might entail a decrease total homicide.
Isn't that the same thing? I would assume the weapon most often used in homicide to be the 'most popular' choice; it IS the #1 choice after all.
And the whole point of your argument was 'having an efficient tool to undertake a task makes you more likely to actually undertake the task'...
They have their fringe moments but they're vicious when they need to be, and produce a lot of solid educational materials
It's cool that there's a Jewish group for guns, but why is their website still in 1997?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why aren't you arming your children? Stand up for their second amendment rights!
Plus it is private citizens looking out for their own protection and not having to raise taxes to pay for more police/security in schools. A win win for all freedom loving Americans everywhere.
Hey my children are armed. Genghis Connie is a badass with an FS 92. All pumpkins fear her pumpkin destroying power.
Jeez, she has a boyfriend now...I feel so old.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Isn't that the same thing? I would assume the weapon most often used in homicide to be the 'most popular' choice; it IS the #1 choice after all.
No, we might ("might" is a key word here) see a reduction in the number of homicides if we banned a popular weapon, but we don't know that to be the case. We know that banning weapon X, assuming said ban is effective, will reduce the rate of homicides involving weapon X. This may dissuade people from carrying out homicide or it may not, but given that tools serve to enable action I would tend to believe a ban on a very effective tool would dissuade people from the activity the tool enables.
They have their fringe moments but they're vicious when they need to be, and produce a lot of solid educational materials
It's cool that there's a Jewish group for guns, but why is their website still in 1997?
The answer is in your sentence mate.
On a less Semitic note I think the actual reason is most of the founders (Rabbis and otherwise) are holocaust survivors and the next generation of their children. So this whole internet thing is new and confusing to them. We should applaud their great strides forward to fabled year of 1997.
For those who don't mind spending a little time on youtube. I'd strongly recommend their videos "No Guns For Negroes" and "2A Today" the former reveals that most gun control laws in the US were designed to keep blacks unarmed, and how black groups like the Deacons during the civil rights movement used firearms to protect communities and individuals from both groups like the Klan and from an oppressive and racist law enforcement community. (Another example of a "Battle of Athens" style use of the 2nd Amendment for it's actual purpose). The second's a nice overview. If you're already up on the situation you won't learn much but it's well done at least.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/22 07:02:14
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/22 12:50:47
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Isn't that the same thing? I would assume the weapon most often used in homicide to be the 'most popular' choice; it IS the #1 choice after all.
No, we might ("might" is a key word here) see a reduction in the number of homicides if we banned a popular weapon, but we don't know that to be the case. We know that banning weapon X, assuming said ban is effective, will reduce the rate of homicides involving weapon X. This may dissuade people from carrying out homicide or it may not, but given that tools serve to enable action I would tend to believe a ban on a very effective tool would dissuade people from the activity the tool enables.
But we DO know that banning guns does not reduce the rate of gun crimes. It is right there in black and white in the FBI's crime statistics.
So your whole case falls apart right there.
Besides, guns don't account for that large a portion of all murders. While they tend to be the most newsworthy weapons of murder, the humble baseball bat outperforms guns something like 5-1 in rate of total people killed per year.
So... why aren't we pushing a ban on baseball bats? After all, a baseball bat is just a tool that is optimised to deliver maximum kinetic impact to a target...
For those who don't mind spending a little time on youtube. I'd strongly recommend their videos "No Guns For Negroes" and "2A Today" the former reveals that most gun control laws in the US were designed to keep blacks unarmed, and how black groups like the Deacons during the civil rights movement used firearms to protect communities and individuals from both groups like the Klan and from an oppressive and racist law enforcement community. (Another example of a "Battle of Athens" style use of the 2nd Amendment for it's actual purpose). The second's a nice overview. If you're already up on the situation you won't learn much but it's well done at least.
It's... it's.... just a lot more complicated than that.
Without getting in to a whole other thing gun ownership correlates with political priviledge and power, not with political minority status. The idea that minorities can arm themselves and ensure equal power just doesn't grok with history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: But we DO know that banning guns does not reduce the rate of gun crimes. It is right there in black and white in the FBI's crime statistics.
I read an interesting piece the other day about the NRA's misuse of statistics about Australia. Our banning of guns was a great test case, as the before and after positions were so clear that any trends would give great evidence.
The final evidence, of declines in murder rates, declines in property crimes, and massive declines in the use of firearms in murder and property crimes was, of course, exactly not what the NRA wanted to hear. So instead they lied in the stats they cited from Australia, picked out single year on year comparisons in specific locations (while ignoring the larger national trends).
It isn't an absolute rule, but it's a good rule of thumb that whenever a side is reduced to lying, their overall case is likely very weak.
Besides, guns don't account for that large a portion of all murders.
It's about 70% of all murders in the US, actually.
While they tend to be the most newsworthy weapons of murder, the humble baseball bat outperforms guns something like 5-1 in rate of total people killed per year.
Who is telling you this crazy made up nonsense?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/23 03:15:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Besides, guns don't account for that large a portion of all murders.
The FBI claims they accounted for 68% of them in 2007.
Come on Dogma, we're all products of the American Education system, we know that a 68% is a D-, which is below average *
*I am kidding of course.
Been quite the interesting debate, I like the graph Dogma posted, I would be interested in the specific crime stats of 2004 to 2008 based on that graph, and I'm wondering what the gang related number was. I know that they're far from "law abiding citizens", but even they could probably appreciate the ability to get their high powered guns legally... Though this is just me thinking out loud.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
But we DO know that banning guns does not reduce the rate of gun crimes. It is right there in black and white in the FBI's crime statistics.
The AWB was passed in 1994, and expired in 2004.
Vulcan has a point that RIFLES don't account for much in the way of the murder rate. Cheap grey/black market hand guns though? That's a horse of a different color. The NIJ and CDC research on the '94 AWB, along with expert testimony to congress all game back at the very best inconclusive about the effectiveness of the '94 AWB in crime reduction. It's important to remember that the use of rifles in any kind in the perpetration of a crime in the United States is already a statistical minority.
“ ... we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun
violence.”
-Congressional testimony, Jimmy Trahin, Los Angeles Detective, Subcommittee on the Constitution of
the Committee on the Judiciary, May 5, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st Session, Washington, DC, US
Government Printing Office, May 5, 1989, p. 379
“... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
-Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’
are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means
that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to
confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”
-Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony - Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug
1993
Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,” though less than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.
-Firearm Use by Offenders , Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
My thoughts on the matter: an "assault weapon" is almost useless to the average criminal on the streets. They are large, unweildy and are extremely difficult to conceal. Even misclassified pistols such as the "Draco" AK pistol or pistolized AR-15s are too large to conceal easily. This is detrimental to the criminal, who violates concealed carry laws with impunity any way, and doesn't feel the need to stick out for a fight with law enforcement, or any one else for that matter. Further thanks to the strong cartel prescence south of the border, I find it likely that any gang that wants serious fire power can get it in the form of actual automatic weapons as opposed to the semi automatic "assault weapons". Though again that is for the most part a non-issue in the United States. We do not see gangs machine gunning each other or using RPGs in the streets, because the benefit of such things is minimal even to the criminal. Back to just rifles in the United States if we jump back to the FBI's 2011 UCR we again find that rifles of any kind, including assault weapons were used in just 323 murders. Is that number acceptable? No there's never "just the right amount of murder" but as far as legislative priorties go, an AR-15 should be somewhere below a bill to determine what flavor of jello should be served in the congressional cafeteria for the next legislative session.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Vulcan has a point that RIFLES don't account for much in the way of the murder rate. Cheap grey/black market hand guns though? That's a horse of a different color. The NIJ and CDC research on the '94 AWB, along with expert testimony to congress all game back at the very best inconclusive about the effectiveness of the '94 AWB in crime reduction. It's important to remember that the use of rifles in any kind in the perpetration of a crime in the United States is already a statistical minority.
I think your point is a good one and made well, but you've done yourself a disservice by dropping it into the back end of a conversation in which another poster was being corrected on his misunderstandings of the use of guns overall.
I agree that 'assault weapons' aren't a major element in crime or gun murders. But I also think it is very important that people stop pretending about the prevalance of guns overall in crime and murder in the US, and how much the US murder rate varies to that overseas.
Unfortunately, and this has been my point throughout this debate in all the various dakka threads, is that the overall national debate is screwy. It has gun control advocates supporting a ban on weapons that just are hardly used in crime or murder but look scary. And then this is opposed by gun rights advocates who point out there's little point in banning those weapons... and while they're right on that point they then don't mention any kind of control on the weapons that do produce most of the killing , instead trying to ensure no reform occurs.
The end result of the failings of both sides is ineffective gun control. Weapons that aren't part of the problem get banned, and weapons that are part of the problem are still available.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I'm not though, I'm saying right there, and agreeing with hundreds of senior police officers and plenty of stats that the problem for most murders in this country are cheap black and grey market handguns.
That's the odd bit, handguns are the primary offensive and defensive weapon used in this country no matter who's getting shot by who. Whether it's a cop killing a bad guy, a bad guy killing a bad guy or a civilian killing an assailant. That's always the proof gun buybacks aren't working to me, whenever they show the "loot" from those programs it's always crap quality rifles and shotguns, very few handguns get taken off the streets.
Pistols are theoretically at least more controlled then rifles and shotguns. You have to be 21 to buy them for example, or buy ammunition for them. So this is where I disturbingly agree with the President, straw man sales and background checks need to be cracked down on and the latter needs to be made more stream lined, accurate and efficient.
Removing pistols completely? Not realistic given weapons trafficking over all and the whole right of the people to defend themselves thing. Going back to our DGU (Defensive Gun Use stats) the low number (federal survey) is roughly 100,000 per year. The high number I use is Dr. Gary Kleck's average calculated from thirteen separate which gives us 2.5 million DGUs yearly. Even if we take the low number, that's a lot of people defending themselves, and most of them are using a handgun as well. Where's the balance point that stops criminals from easily getting pistols from the legal economy and still ensures the law abiding can have one if they want one?
An interesting thought that one of my classmates had is you increase punishments when a firearm is used in a crime. So if I theoretically rob someone I'm looking at 10 years, if I rob someone at gun point now I'm doing 50. I'd agree to that, but want increased protection for defensive shooters to be codified into the legal system at the same time. At present the way a defensive weapon use is prosecuted in most areas is the same way you prosecute a murder, except you already have a confession that the defendant killed someone.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
*
