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.
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
People who think that more laws will have zero effect on anything are just as stupid as the people who think laws will result in reducing things to zero.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 06:36:22
Seaward wrote: We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
Why can't they both be stupid? There are impossibly stupid people who think that the solution is to make murder even more illegal, and there are impossibly stupid people who think that giving guns to every teacher is a remotely sane idea.
azazel the cat wrote: But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
Except that:
1) Mass murder events are incredibly rare (they just get media attention way out of proportion to their frequency), so making any laws specifically to deal with them is bad policy. Yes, there are sensible laws that could reduce their impact as a side effect (better background checks, mandatory secure storage, etc), but creating a specific law to ban, say, magazine capacity in an attempt to make a 15-murder event into a 10-murder event is just pointless.
2) Banning "assault rifles" won't do much to stop mass murder. For example, previous shootings have involved pistols and lots of spare magazines, so all the "assault rifle" ban would do is force the shooter to reload more frequently (a negligible impact on the end result). Or, even if it somehow did reduce the potential death count, it might just convince the shooter to use a bomb instead. Or to block the exits so nobody can escape before they can kill everyone with their less-effective guns. Etc.
So, in the end, demands for an "assault rifle" ban are just a reflex that Something Must Be Done, and big scary looking guns are an easy target. It won't change anything, but it will make ignorant people feel that Our Politicians Are Supporting Us and let them pretend that they have some kind of control over future tragedies.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
azazel the cat wrote: But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
Except they wouldn't, because I cannot think of a single mass murder committed using assault rifles in recent memory.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that sale of new assault rifles has been banned since 1986. Voila, azazel, you've gotten your wish.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 07:13:57
azazel the cat wrote: But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
Except they wouldn't, because I cannot think of a single mass murder committed using assault rifles in recent memory.
You've got to be kidding me. The Batman movie theatre shooter used an AR-15. Why don't you go ahead and guess what AR originally stood for? And the Sandy Hook shooter, to my knowledge, was carrying a Bushmaster XM-15, which is also an assault rifle.
Seaward wrote:Not to mention, of course, the fact that sale of new assault rifles has been banned since 1986. Voila, azazel, you've gotten your wish.
No, if I'd gotten my wish, then the USA would have a socialist healthcare and public education system in place like Canada or Sweden, and truly work to reduce the causal factors behind these events, rather than a very weak bandaid solution in the form of machine gun bans.
Oh, who am I kidding. If I'd gotten my wish, it'd be Famke Janssen. To Hell with public safety.
And for what it's worth, the sale of new fully-automatic machine guns have been illegal since 1986. Assault rifles are still very legal. 20 minutes South of me, the residents of Washington State can buy one for about $1500.
Frazzled wrote: Alex Jones is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging radio ratings.
Piers Morgan is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging TV ratings.
Is there a connection?
I wouldn't watch that 7 minutes. Thats seven minutes of your life you'll never get back.
It's funny how Piers had to get Jones on his show to lend him (Piers) some credibility. Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
No, this is not rational, it is just as stupid as all the other crap out there. This whole thing is about guns and gun violence. We're not looking at overall violent crimes and violent crime rate. We are looking at Gun Control and Gun related crimes.
He keeps bringing up stats that mean absolutely nothing to the argument that as been put in front of him, and contrary to his belief, its been put in front of him clearly. People kill people with guns. There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Robberies, Rapes, Assaults and other crimes are just totally irrelevant.
Banished, from my own homeland. And now you dare enter my realm?... you are not prepared.
dogma wrote:Did she at least have a nice rack?
Love it! Play Chaos Dwarfs, Dwarfs, Brets and British FoW (Canadian Rifle and Armoured)
azazel the cat wrote: You've got to be kidding me. The Batman movie theatre shooter used an AR-15. Why don't you go ahead and guess what AR originally stood for? And the Sandy Hook shooter, to my knowledge, was carrying a Bushmaster XM-15, which is also an assault rifle.
Neither of those are assault rifles, actually. They're semiautomatic rifles. By definition, an assault rifle needs to be capable of burst or automatic fire. Those are not.
And for what it's worth, the sale of new fully-automatic machine guns have been illegal since 1986. Assault rifles are still very legal. 20 minutes South of me, the residents of Washington State can buy one for about $1500.
No, they cannot. They can purchase a semiautomatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle, but they cannot purchase an assault rifle for $1500. As I mentioned above, if it's not capable of selective fire, it's not an assault rifle, no matter what clueless reporters tell you.
Poppabear wrote: There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Err, how exactly does not having access to a gun make you want to kill someone less? You might change the ability to kill someone, but the incentive is going to be exactly the same. Unless of course you're arguing that merely having possession of a gun makes you want to kill people?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Poppabear wrote: There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Err, how exactly does not having access to a gun make you want to kill someone less? You might change the ability to kill someone, but the incentive is going to be exactly the same. Unless of course you're arguing that merely having possession of a gun makes you want to kill people?
He may be arguing that the incredibly easy task of pulling a trigger at range is far less intimidating on the concience than, say, swinging a mallet again and again, up close and personal-like.
(I'm not certain I really believe that idea, but that's how I interpreted his statement.)
I don't know if there has been any research into the psychological aspect of gun ownership. (Alex Jones is not a good advert. He comes over as a swivel-eyed paranoiac with poor temper control, and apparently owns 50 guns.)
There is a practical argument from the medical angle though.
The ability to kill someone more easily is causative to the number of people killed. Medical research from the US and South Africa shows that gun wounds are more dangerous than knife wounds.
Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
I don't know if there has been any research into the psychological aspect of gun ownership. (Alex Jones is not a good advert. He comes over as a swivel-eyed paranoiac with poor temper control, and apparently owns 50 guns.)
There is a practical argument from the medical angle though.
The ability to kill someone more easily is causative to the number of people killed. Medical research from the US and South Africa shows that gun wounds are more dangerous than knife wounds.
Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Has Britain actually ended up with fewer homicides as the result of functionally banning guns?
I don't know if there has been any research into the psychological aspect of gun ownership. (Alex Jones is not a good advert. He comes over as a swivel-eyed paranoiac with poor temper control, and apparently owns 50 guns.)
There is a practical argument from the medical angle though.
The ability to kill someone more easily is causative to the number of people killed. Medical research from the US and South Africa shows that gun wounds are more dangerous than knife wounds.
Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Has Britain actually ended up with fewer homicides as the result of functionally banning guns?
Actually not what he said. The correct question would be "Has Britain actually ended up with fewer and/or less severe injuries as a result of functionally banning guns?"
Actually not what he said. The correct question would be "Has Britain actually ended up with fewer and/or less severe injuries as a result of functionally banning guns?"
Do I need to go back and highlight the word 'deaths' in the following sentence?
Killkrazy wrote:Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Actually not what he said. The correct question would be "Has Britain actually ended up with fewer and/or less severe injuries as a result of functionally banning guns?"
Do I need to go back and highlight the word 'deaths' in the following sentence?
Killkrazy wrote:Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Saw the "self harming and accidents" part of that, the highlighting helped (even though you bolded instead of highlighted it) .
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the actual question then:
If the murder rate has decreased I do not think it is necessarily a consequence of tighter licensing, since the murder rate in the UK has historically been much lower than the USA's and "random" statistical variation might account for changes.
If the murder rate has decreased I do not think it is necessarily a consequence of tighter licensing, since the murder rate in the UK has historically been much lower than the USA's and "random" statistical variation might account for changes.
Tying any one action to any one particular result is also going to be virtually impossible.
So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
Correlation is not causation. Is there any evidence to support the case that the decreased homicide rate is a result of gun laws, instead of being a result of other factors which happened to occur at the same time as the new gun laws (for example, a better economy, lower crime rates overall, etc).
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
If the murder rate has decreased I do not think it is necessarily a consequence of tighter licensing, since the murder rate in the UK has historically been much lower than the USA's and "random" statistical variation might account for changes.
Tying any one action to any one particular result is also going to be virtually impossible.
So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
Correlation is not causation. Is there any evidence to support the case that the decreased homicide rate is a result of gun laws, instead of being a result of other factors which happened to occur at the same time as the new gun laws (for example, a better economy, lower crime rates overall, etc).
Yes, but it dose give lie to the argument that bans on guns increase crime, which is what some people are claiming with "Then only the "bad guys" will have them". Ugh... I hate the phrase "bad guys". It lives in a made up black and white world where the is "The good guys" and "The bad guys" with no shades of gray.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
Thats the same thing. COnsidering those rifles are already restricted there AND THE GUY STOLE IT its nonsense.
its just a rifle with plastic bits. Someone with a bat with nails in it could have done the same thing. He wasn't attacking ninjas, he was attacking trapped children.
Thats why this "lockdown" in case of emergency is nonsense. Get out. FIght back. Even better LOCK UP THE CRAZY fething LOONS AND QUIT GIVING THEM MIND ALTERING DRUGS BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Sandy - known nutjob
Aurora - known nutjob
They're almost always known nutjobs, yet nothing is done. This gak won't stop until that is corrected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 12:20:32
-"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!
Thats the same thing. COnsidering those rifles are already restricted there AND THE GUY STOLE IT its nonsense.
its just a rifle with plastic bits. Someone with a bat with nails in it could have done the same thing. He wasn't attacking ninjas, he was attacking trapped children.
Thats why this "lockdown" in case of emergency is nonsense. Get out. FIght back. Even better LOCK UP THE CRAZY fething LOONS AND QUIT GIVING THEM MIND ALTERING DRUGS BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Sandy - known nutjob
Aurora - known nutjob
They're almost always known nutjobs, yet nothing is done. This gak won't stop until that is corrected.
He was able to steal the rifle because his mon was fething irresponsible and just had it lying around, and she must have known about his problems. With better regulations, the mother would have been required to lock her guns away and oh look! He couldn't have gotten to them in that case!
And oh Frazzled, do you really think a guy with a bat can kill as many kids than a guy with a fething rifle?? all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger, with a bat it's all close and personal, takes longer, and is not near as deadly. Do you know that in the same week as the Sany Hook massacre, there was a chinese douche who did the same thing in a chinese elementary school, but he didn't have access to guns, so he had to resort to a knife. And oh look, he didn't manage to kill a single child! He was just as crazy as the sandy hook killer, but without guns, the nutjobs actually do inflict less damage!
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
MrMerlin wrote: He was able to steal the rifle because his mon was fething irresponsible and just had it lying around, and she must have known about his problems. With better regulations, the mother would have been required to lock her guns away and oh look! He couldn't have gotten to them in that case!
You know how she stored her guns? I don't. Where did you find this information?
all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger,
I assure you, in all sincerity, this is incorrect.
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
Not really. I haven't seen a single serious proposal that would have affected Lanza's ability to pull off his murder spree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
MrMerlin wrote: And oh Frazzled, do you really think a guy with a bat can kill as many kids than a guy with a fething rifle?? all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger, with a bat it's all close and personal, takes longer, and is not near as deadly. Do you know that in the same week as the Sany Hook massacre, there was a chinese douche who did the same thing in a chinese elementary school, but he didn't have access to guns, so he had to resort to a knife. And oh look, he didn't manage to kill a single child! He was just as crazy as the sandy hook killer, but without guns, the nutjobs actually do inflict less damage!
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
When the kids are trapped in a room hell yea I do.
-"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!
And the link shows (not 1963 but starting at 1965: 6,158
2004: 11,624
Gun suicides have almost doubled.
Accidents are greatly down though, from 2,344 to 649. I am going to guess that firearm safety programs are successful .
And the link shows (not 1963 but starting at 1965: 6,158
2004: 11,624
Gun suicides have almost doubled.
Accidents are greatly down though, from 2,344 to 649. I am going to guess that firearm safety programs are successful .
Probably because I was talking about all homicides, not simply gun-related ones. As was the poster I was responding to.
But even if we want to talk strictly firearm-related homicides, I still don't see it. That number's trending down, according to the VPC (lol) statistics, not up.
So the poster you were responding to (who specifically mentioned gun-violence in his post) is not just talking about gun-related crimes?
But even if we want to talk strictly firearm-related homicides, I still don't see it. That number's trending down, according to the VPC (lol) statistics, not up.
Keep on moving the goalposts then.
You specifically said "lowest since 1963". Now you are talking about "trending down"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 15:04:46