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.

Seriously, about gun control....sort of off the subject but a point I like to make whenever people who disagree with gun ownership start talking.

I used to be ALL FOR IT. I was against privatly owned weapons here in America (ACTUAL hunting weapons excluded) and just thought it would be safer with less weapons on the street if that would at all be a consequence of taking away certain american rights.


....Then I got a job in Law Enforcement, and finally held a pistol and shotgun for the first time in my life (noticing I had a natural affinity for them quite Ironically, top shooting marks in my class). At first I was afraid of them, holding them gingerly and worrying about what I was doing...eventually I got used to them and came to a realisation.

The only difference between a pistol and a hammer (of the toolbox variety) is the mechanism. They are both simply tools, CAPABLE of doing grevious bodily damage, but neither item is really any more than a tool. Guns are tools no more, no less.

Guns really DONT kill people, any more than hammers do. People wielding either item will kill people. Take away my gun, and I'm likely to pick up a hammer out of the garage to kill you with.

I sincerely doubt that new gun regulations in America will do much to alleviate the murder issues. You see, we Americans are f*cked up like that. We're going to kill each other...if not with guns, with hammers. Take away guns and you've still got kids in gangs, still have jealous crazy wives with cheating husbands, still have crazy parents that will find some way of hurting their children....

Take away the guns, and the violence will remain. A very small percentage of all handgun incidents result in fatalities anyway so I really doubt that handguns would have an impact on the statistics above. Easier and more for sure to bash someones head in with a hammer. Then we'll have a new thread started...

"American hammer control issues"


...a note on statistics, you know statistically, when you consider all the stars, solar systems and planets out there, then consider how much life we've discovered...statistically we dont exist...so why NOT shoot each other?

focusedfire wrote:And yet you casually dismiss a drop of 4.5:1 to 2.8:1 Thats about a 40ish percent drop just changing one paradigm.

I have a feeling that while we agree to some point(You actually have engaged in the sporting use of firearms and it didn't turn you into a murderer), we will differ on this drastically in other areas because of completely differing life philosophies.

The kicker that gets to me is that pro-gun individuals aren't trying to require everyone to own a gun, whereas the anti-gun groups aren't as considerate

I'm not casually dismissing anything. Depending on the year and the studies involved a 40% difference isn't out of the question. So you could probably say the multiple between the US and Australia is between 2.8 and 4.5 times. Even at the low end there, 2.8 times the murders is a massive difference. Think about how many people that is, out of a population of 300 million. Using your figures that's 12800 people killed every year compared to 4500 if you killed people at the Australian rate. That's 8,300 people every year, more than two world trade centres every year.

So you know, people can pretend that's not true. or they can look at what's really causing the issue. Or they can keep on arguing about gun control as though that has anything to do with anything.

I'm a strong believer in gun control.

And by "gun control", I mean controlling one's gun so that he bullets go where you want, when you want.

As a law-abiding citizen I won't accept any limitiations on my right to own or bear firearms of any type. If I want to carry a concealable machine gun loaded with armor-piercing dum-dums, and mil-spec body armor, that's *my* business.

Constitutionally-protected firearms should be held to the same standard as speech, and prior restraint by the government should not be permitted unless the state can show reasonable cause *and* imminent danger to the public at large.

That is all.

Deadshane1 wrote:Guns really DONT kill people,

Bull.

Guns load their own bullets, release their own safeties, aim themselves at people, and release their own triggers with homicidal results.

All by themselves.

You didn't know that?

Shame on you!


That's why it takes a very strong man, woman, or child to safely operate a gun!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

As a law-abiding citizen I won't accept any limitiations on my right to own or bear firearms of any type. If I want to carry a concealable machine gun loaded with armor-piercing dum-dums, and mil-spec body armor, that's *my* business.

.

Question is, however, what exactly 'IS' your business having to be armed to the teeth thusly? As a Law enforcement officer it would be my duty to detain you and make your choice in acouterments very inconvenient while I check the validity of any licenses/ID you have.

Bit extreme that.

(in reality, I think 'I' should be the only one carrying a gun....thats fair.)

John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that? It sounds like hell.

I much prefer it here, you can run away from a knife.

Greebynog wrote:John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that? It sounds like hell.

I much prefer it here, you can run away from a knife.

What you call hell...he calls home.

...and he eats things that would make a billygoat puke.

@ sebster-Thing is, your declaring the low end limit on data that has such a large variation that these numbers have no credibility as Empirical evidence. To top it off, The rates of variance reduce even further when viewed by region. 6.6 in the us to europes 5.4.

Yes, I agree there are underlying reasons that need to be examined. To me the question is, in human history, is a .0057% murder rate really that horrific? Or, are we going through an artificial socially engineered low that if tinkered with any more might break the system and throw us back into a state of barbarism? Yes, there may be room for improvement. But, Will that improvement break the tenuous balance that we as a species have obtained?

I, personally, am a ruthless Darwinian. I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous. Same goes for most of the hot topic issues. I believe in expecting more responsibility out of the masses rather than less.


edited for spelling

focusedfire wrote:
I, personally, am a ruthless Darwinian. I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous. Same goes for most of the hot topic issues. I beleive in expecting more responsibility out of the masses rather than less.

Man thats hot....I gotta remember that idea.

Darwinian doesn't apply to humans...

Any pussy can fire a gun and kill someone.

focusedfire wrote:@ sebster-Thing is, your declaring the low end limit on data that has such a large variation that these numbers have no credibility as Empirical evidence. To top it off, The rates of variance reduce even further when viewed by region. 6.6 in the us to europes 5.4.

If you pick two collections of data and are willing to dismiss a relative difference a variance of 40%, you’ll end up dismissing most studies, and relying on personal bias to form your opinions of the world. That’s a bad thing.

Instead you should take stats as they are, prone to some level of systemic error, prone to random fluctuations, and prone to cherrypicking, but an excellent tool for understanding broad social trends.

Yes, I agree there are underlying reasons that need to be examined. To me the question is, in human history, is a .0057% murder rate really that horrific?

Yeah, people getting murdered is horrific. By the maths I showed you above, the difference was about 8,000 people a year. More than two World Trade Centres. Most people consider that was pretty horrific, so it seems a short jump to claim that yeah, having that many more people killed every year is horrific.

Or, are we going through an artificial socially engineered low that if tinkered with any more might break the system and throw us back into a state of barbarism? Yes, there may be room for improvement. But, Will that improvement break the tenuous balance that we as a species have obtained?

No, none of that is plausible. We’re making steady progress as we become wealthier and more educated, and expand opportunities to a greater percentage of the population. If we continue to do that, the murder rate will drop further. But some places have managed to lower it more than others. It makes sense to look at the differences between those places.

I, personally, am a ruthless Darwinian. I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous. Same goes for most of the hot topic issues. I believe in expecting more responsibility out of the masses rather than less.

I’m not really sure what the ‘responsibility to not get murdered’ is.

I kind of look at the murder rate statistics like this:

World average = 7.6 (2004)

Americas = 16.2 (2004)

North America = 6.6 (wow, we're doing well, and we still have Mexico... which was 11+ in 2004, now 25+ due to unrestricted drug war / drug-fueled civil war)

USA = 5.6 (+/- 0.1 measurement / reporting error)

After this, there are basically no comparable populations in the remainder of the list.


To get a valid comparison with Australia with it's population of a mere 20 MILLION, one might compare with, say, Southern California alone (California is 38 million total). Or for an easier comparison, one can either use the state of Texas or New York. Let's use New York, as the total population and geographic isolation are somewhat more comparable (i.e. they don't have huge influx of illegals walking in - illegals need to boat or fly in).

New York = 4.2 (2007, consistent decline)

Of course, if I start with 15M Americans in the the Northeastern pocket, it's a whopping 2.4, due to a comparable level population homogeneity and class ...


OTOH, if we focus on the murder capital, Washington, D.C., or Detroit (both 40+), then the number looks something like Iraq. Or current-day Gaza...

There's nothing like economic collapse in an urban environment to drive murder rates sky-high.


Imagine that!

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Darwinian doesn't apply to humans...

Ever seen an idiot on a motorcycle go screaming past you on the Freeway when you're going 60mph already in medium traffic? Ever seen him wrapped around a lightpost or taking a dirtnap under an 18 wheeler a mile down the road? Didnt think so. It most certainly DOES apply to humans.

Any pussy can fire a gun and kill someone.

This statement doesnt really say anything.

It does actually, with more access to gun means it's more easily for people to kill others.

I’m not really sure what the ‘responsibility to not get murdered’ is.

Gang related shootings, killings that would've never happened if participants hadnt been involved with drugs, ect....

Not all "murders" are perpetrated on people who had no say in the matter.

Ghetto_Fight wrote:It does actually, with more access to gun means it's more easily for people to kill others.

Not that this is even close to what you said before, but your statement is EXTREMELY simplistic and not necessarily true.

All "more access to guns" means, is that "there is more access to guns"....nothing more.

As I pointed out before, if someone wants to kill someone else bad enough, likely that they'll find a way to do it, whether or not they can obtain a firearm.

Greebynog wrote:John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that?

If they're all law-abiding citizens, I could hardly care less what they do.
____

Deadshane1 wrote:What you call hell...he calls home.

...and he eats things that would make a billygoat puke.

To be fair, I've moved from metro DC (the murder capital of the US), to metro Detroit (a very close second), to metro Los Angeles (a bit farther down on the list). Hardly a day goes by in any of these places without a murder. So, yeah, I'll be forgiven if I have a somewhat different take on self-defense and gun control. One of these days, I'll move out of the top 10 murder cities in the US, I swear!

True. I'm Cantonese, and we eat *everything*. I'm talking about the full range of organ "meats", the full range of shellfish, and damn near anything that you can ferment. *Real* delicacies. Tasty!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Greebynog wrote:John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that?

If they're all law-abiding citizens, I could hardly care less what they do.
____

Deadshane1 wrote:What you call hell...he calls home.

...and he eats things that would make a billygoat puke.

To be fair, I've moved from metro DC (the murder capital of the US), to metro Detroit (a very close second), to metro Los Angeles (a bit farther down on the list). Hardly a day goes by in any of these places without a murder. So, yeah, I'll be forgiven if I have a somewhat different take on self-defense and gun control. One of these days, I'll move out of the top 10 murder cities in the US, I swear!

True. I'm Cantonese, and we eat *everything*. I'm talking about the full range of organ "meats", the full range of shellfish, and damn near anything that you can ferment. *Real* delicacies. Tasty!

Wanna babysit my GF's cat? Bonapetite!

focusedfire wrote:I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous.

Piss me off, and I'll get in front of you, then back into you...

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm Cantonese, and we eat *everything*. I'm talking about the full range of organ "meats", the full range of shellfish, and damn near anything that you can ferment. *Real* delicacies. Tasty!

Wanna babysit my GF's cat? Bonapetite!

Would I have to shoot it with a gun?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Greebynog wrote:John, do you? I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that?

If they're all law-abiding citizens, I could hardly care less what they do.

If they were all law abiding citizens, this wouldn't be an issue.

Deadshane1 wrote:I was upset when I first looked into this thread. I initially thought it was going to be 3 pages of people discussing the best stances (weaver, isoseles), fastest ways to reload (two ships pass in the night), proper way to pull the trigger (smooth flat back press), ect....

Gun Control (gun, kun-trol)noun-The act of maintaining control of your weapon while shooting people that dont think you should have it.

This might be a better board for you, for this topic Deadshane (jeez that sentence came off as clunky as Frankenstein's monster walking didn't it?)

http://www.texaschlforum.com/

Greebynog wrote:
If they were all law abiding citizens, this wouldn't be an issue.

Alright, there are going to be violent people out there, and you're not always going to be able to catch them proactively. I still don't feel that I should be restricted because of that.

Deadshane1 wrote:The high murder rate is due to tourists coming to America and complaining about all the guns.

lol thats probably about 25% of the murders in new york and 30% of the murders in atlanta

and wow... i had no idea that this thread would take off like this wow

and yes this is another report i had to wite but not the one on immigration.

i dont really rant, i more like point out the reasons that i think that guns should be allowed to stay on the market.

but i am the most aggressive debator on the school debate team

Number of guns I own, 7.

Number of rounds I have at my house, over 500

Number of people I have killed, 0.

Envy89 wrote:Number of guns I own, 7.

Number of rounds I have at my house, over 500

Number of people I have killed, 0.

In Texas you would be considered a gun grabbing left winger with only seven! I'll shoot 500 rounds in a light afternoon...

Envy89 wrote:Number of guns I own, 7.

Number of rounds I have at my house, over 500

Number of people I have killed, 0.

I might have 500 .22 at any time, and I might have a box of rounds for my hunting rifle, because I only go through 10 or so per season, but I rarely have that much ammunition. Shooting has gotten really expensive, really it always has been. A box or two of .357 or .38 is about all I'll go through at a time. I have a little .25 auto but for some reason that is more expensive than a lot of the larger calibers, I suppose because they don't make as much of it, but I don't really know.

How much does a gun cost anyhow then ? On average anyway.

And bullets etc etc too.

I believe (in certain states) anyway you have to have a license to hunt etc too, I assume that costs $s as well.

Bunk statistical analysis: Check
Mobius strip like trains of logic: Check
Ad Hominem: Check
Boasting about ones "size": Check
Inferring gun ownership is a self esteem thing: Check



Oh gun control thread, it's as if you're trying to be exactly what I said you were in response #1.

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc. I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.