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.

Drinking is a false comparison, All brandishing, or improper exhibition, does not require that the firearm is being used as a container of alcohol is used. Just that it is visible. The equivalent would be arresting someone for carrying a six pack of beer out of the store after purchase


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Selling alcohol to minors, social hosting, serving alcohol to drunk people, all good examples of alcohol laws frequently ignored though.

Which ones of those are felonies?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
80% wrong

Really? There are a number of established peer reviewed papers which would suggest otherwise. Not to mention crime statistics. I would welcome your input as to what is incorrect and why.

On the one hand, Jihadin is correct, I mean, look at the number of Vets currently undergoing treatment for PTSD as just ONE example of this idea that it is simply easier to pull a trigger on the psychological level. I would say also that within those same crime stats you mention, there is going to be some level of sociopathy, or psychopathy involved.... As people generally don't commit crimes against other people without some form of either of those.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It might be called hypocritical to call people hypocritical who call for stricter gun laws when there are already stricter car and alcohol laws in effect.

IDK how strongly the car and alcohol lobbies lobbied against such laws.

As has been pointed out earlier, it's far easier to get alcohol than a gun. I also don't see firearms advertised on the networks as much, if at all, like alcohol is.

Then of course, there is the very possible connection between alcohol and crime:

https://ncadd.org/images/stories/PDF/factsheet-alcoholandcrime.pdf

From NBC:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.U8BoaCe9KSM

Jihadin wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If you had no guns at all it would have made it even harder for him to shoot them.

That said, a gun distances you from the act of killing (even in close range attacks) physically and emotionally making it easier to go through with the act of killing.

Additionally, the majority of murders and "attempted murders" are carried out on an unplanned basis using whatever is closest to hand, that being generally (in the USA) a gun, knife, blunt instrument or bare hands. Unfortunately, guns are particularly good at killing people very quickly meaning that in instances where guns are used, the victim is far more likely to be killed.

So in summary, guns make killing psychologically easier, make it easier to kill physically stronger individuals and groups of individuals, and are, generally, more deadly when used on a person than other methods.

80% wrong

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
80% wrong

Really? There are a number of established peer reviewed papers which would suggest otherwise. Not to mention crime statistics. I would welcome your input as to what is incorrect and why.

Post me a establish peer paper. I like to see one out of curiosity.

A fire arm does not distance yourself from the killing. A individual has to actively "aim" the weapon lining up the rear and front sight. Track the target through the sights and apply 9lbs trigger squeeze. There's a calm detach mental effort into it. Individual knows what about to happen but calm enough to ensure a "center mass" shot. A "pray and spray" is pretty straight forward. Point the weapon. Apply 9lbs and track the weapon towards the target. The rush of putting steel on target is enhance by the number of rounds in the mag or revolver.

There's a mental "block"/"pause" when one about to squeeze the trigger on a target. One removes the mental "block" by getting use to shooting paper targets with a human outline in it or a human shape dummy. Also the front sight post pretty much put a "upright black rectangle" over the target. Also the "dot" they put on some front sight post is a mind trick because the mind is focus on the dot


Back to work for me

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think they throw that in the stats because its a violent mean to opt out.

Its also a way to manipulate data. Some unscrupulous cities (Chicago) could classify some homcides as "suicides" and lower the scores.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Six dead in domestic gun violence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28240831

Are we going to list every crime now?
A man was stabbed to death in Hendon.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/pages/news/index.asp?NewsID=1163

The point about this particular incident is that it supports the argument for gun control.

In this case it seems that the husband and wife had an argument that got out of hand. With a gun easily available, the husband was able in a fit of rage to grab it up and shoot dead six people including four of his children.

Perhaps it might be argued that if the wife and children had also been armed, it could not have happened like that.

Or he could have used a butcher knife or a nice Louisville Slugger.

No. Do not let him do that. Do not allow him to simply make gak up. He's referencing events that did not happen.

On my phone so no papers atm... note that "easier" does not mean "easy". PTSD is one indication that even with training, killing isn't easy. Further note that a large number of attacks in the civillian world are spur of the moment "unthinking" attacks - the use of a gyn in such attacks often escalatung "harm" to "death".

I think I came across clearly but re-reading my post I might have dropped the ball. I'm going to probably feth up here and assume you get what I was saying.

There's a thought process before action. No one can predict a "trigger" on someone who goes violent. It just happens. They're shooting with both eyes open
The ones that goes about planning it are the ones that are "disturbed". Envisioning step by step, shot by shot, body by body drop, in what order they drop. They're building up the trigger moment
The "soldier" mentally trained just by going to the rifle range. Trigger going to come when how close they come to getting killed.

An interesting book on the subject of killing: Perpetration-induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing - Rachel MacNair.

A look at the relationship between gun ownership and likelihood of being involved in homicide. (reference as I am not sure if that link is working - Kellermann, Arthur L., et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." New England Journal of Medicine 329.15 (1993): 1084-1091.), with a follow up paper looking at the subject from the other side (although still finding a positive correlation).

Firearms being deadlier than other methods of attack and permitting attacks that would otherwise not be possible (or would be very difficult to conduct successfully): Paper abstract, Most of the paper reproduced within source book.

Just the first papers talking about the subject and covering most of the points I mentioned.

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think they throw that in the stats because its a violent mean to opt out.

Its also a way to manipulate data. Some unscrupulous cities (Chicago) could classify some homcides as "suicides" and lower the scores.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Six dead in domestic gun violence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28240831

Are we going to list every crime now?
A man was stabbed to death in Hendon.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/pages/news/index.asp?NewsID=1163

The point about this particular incident is that it supports the argument for gun control.

In this case it seems that the husband and wife had an argument that got out of hand. With a gun easily available, the husband was able in a fit of rage to grab it up and shoot dead six people including four of his children.

Perhaps it might be argued that if the wife and children had also been armed, it could not have happened like that.

Or he could have used a butcher knife or a nice Louisville Slugger.

No. Do not let him do that. Do not allow him to simply make gak up. He's referencing events that did not happen.

And making stuff up sort of flies in the face of what this thread is supposed to be about, doesn't it?