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.

Oh I agree, a poll on that scale would probably be so expensive as to make the poll not worth the effort. I just don't want to pin any debate on those figures are anything other than very broad strokes of the paintbrush.

Thats all.

Cheers

Andrew

 sebster wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:
A very specific type of gun....that encompasses half the guns currently on the market? I don't think you fully realize how far reaching the bans proposed are. This also assumes that the efforts to ban and control firearms and ammunition will STOP with an AWB...which...doesn't take much looking to prove wrong.

I have read it. And what you just said is poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. Half the guns on the market... not even close. That's so far from the mark that I honestly wonder if I should be more disappointed in whoever told you that lie, or in you for believing it so eagerly.

The bill only looks at rifles, and they make up 40 to 45% of the market so we're already a under half. And of those weapons, it is only looking to ban semi-auto, bolt action, lever, pump or other mechanisms remain.

Now, once again, I do not agree with that bill. It is going after weapons that simply are not commonly used in murder. It is bad law.

But it isn't going to pass. Even if the Republicans didn't control the House, it wouldn't pass. This is a good thing, because it is a bad law.

But that doesn't justify the great outflow of stupid we've seen from the pro-gun people. Seriously, you guys and the mindset you take on, and the way you approach this debate are absolutely your own worst enemy.

Then obviously you haven't read the bill.

It specifically mentions pistols, and shotguns as well. It targets all handguns that have detachable magazines that can hold more then 10 rounds. That hits a large portion of the handgun market since many 9mm semiautomatic pistols have 15 round capacities. The Beretta 90 Series is a prime example. It names 152 specific fire arms to be banned, a good portion of them being shotguns and handguns.

So either, you cherry picked through the bill, like they did with their facts in it, or you just didn't read it at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'd just like to add a gripe about how Feinstein was referencing Harvy Milks assassination as part of the reasoning for this bill.

Harvy Milk and George Mascone were shot by a police issued service revolver that had a 6 round capacity. None of the weapons that she is targetting are in any way related to that event.

So she needs to shut up about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also found this, and thought it was relevant to the discussion about banning weapons.

http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

Homeland Defense stating that a 5.56 NATO weapon(or .223) with a 30 round capacity magazine is a suitable weapon for the use of close quarter personal defense. They also argue that the weapon should have select fire capability, ie semi-auto, 3 round burst, or full automatic even.

So, it's good enough for the members of Homeland Defense, but not good enough for the everyday American to have.

 djones520 wrote:
And I'd just like to add a gripe about how Feinstein was referencing Harvy Milks assassination as part of the reasoning for this bill.

Harvy Milk and George Mascone were shot by a police issued service revolver that had a 6 round capacity. None of the weapons that she is targetting are in any way related to that event.

So she needs to shut up about that.

Fienswine is one of the biggest hypocrites on the face to the planet. She has a CA CCW permit, carries a pistol and has armed bodyguards, yet sees no reason for people have the firearm of their choice to defend themselves. When she gives up her CCW, turns in her firearms and tells her bodyguards to carry stun guns, I think about listening to her. Until then, I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.

I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.

They needed to phone more people.

Cheers

Andrew

You have absolutly no clue how a random sample works. And never taken a statistics class either.

1000 people is a good size for a poll, provided your sample gathering techniques are sound.

but not good enough for the everyday American to have.

That's kinda the point. In their view it is TOO good for the everyday American. The peasantry doesn't have the stability (even if they do) or the training (Even if their experience and skill far exceeds the average officer or soldier, or were at one time one of the two) to be trusted with such power!

Sarcasm aside, It's nothing more than an attempt at making a disparity of force greater. Feinstein is, judging by her voting record and stated opinions, a statist. The end. It's only natural that she wants the people holding HER guns to have the best ones.

She's not going after handguns and cheap shotguns, which are being used with a lot more frequency in crimes. This I would still oppose, but I could certainly understand the thinking.
She's not attempting to find the source of what social ills are causing us to want to freaking shoot each other and solve them.
She's spending her time and zeal on this, and in the process wasting a lot of time, money, and really ticking a lot of good people off.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.

I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.

They needed to phone more people.

Cheers

Andrew

You have absolutly no clue how a random sample works. And never taken a statistics class either.

1000 people is a good size for a poll, provided your sample gathering techniques are sound.

I stand outside of Wall Street, major bank corporations, and country clubs to get my pulse of the nations, that's sound gathering techniques right?

it is American culture to own guns

I lived around guns all my youth, everyone had one, or 100

now it is getting insane. Not long before I went to HS there were kids with trucks with gun racks full of guns in the parking lot. There were never any gun shootings at schools then, seems odd.

IMO BULLYING is to blame for all this gack. We need to teach all the kids that we are all equal, what some are good at others are not so good at, but they are better at things those others aren't. We all have our own gifts to add to this thing we call life. There has always been gentle teasing, but this bullying thing is fething terrible. When kids would rather die than go back to school we have a serious problem. We need to stop turning our schools into factories and turn them back into halls of education, or the US of A is as they say, " Up a gak creek with a turd for a paddle."

 DIDM wrote:
it is American culture to own guns

I lived around guns all my youth, everyone had one, or 100

now it is getting insane. Not long before I went to HS there were kids with trucks with gun racks full of guns in the parking lot. There were never any gun shootings at schools then, seems odd.

IMO BULLYING is to blame for all this gack. We need to teach all the kids that we are all equal, what some are good at others are not so good at, but they are better at things those others aren't. We all have our own gifts to add to this thing we call life. There has always been gentle teasing, but this bullying thing is fething terrible. When kids would rather die than go back to school we have a serious problem. We need to stop turning our schools into factories and turn them back into halls of education, or the US of A is as they say, " Up a gak creek with a turd for a paddle."

That's actually a good point...

However, there will always be bullys... but, we do need to create a mechanism to address it.

Mine solution? If my kids were bullied... I'd tell them this:
a) First, tell me
b) Secondly, tell teacher
c) Thirdly, if that doesn't work... tell principle
d) Fourthly, if that doesn't work... feth it, just beat the gak out of him in class in front of everyone and I'll have your full support against the authorities.

 DIDM wrote:
it is American culture to own guns

...
...

I think that is the source of the problem.

However, culture can change.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
it is American culture to own guns

...
...

I think that is the source of the problem.

Why?

You have evidence.

I have given so much evidence so many times in other threads on this very page of the forum that I will merely refer you to my previous answers.

You have specific evidence that a culture of guns is directly linked to violence?

1) I have not seen any of your posts that have given this information

2) it is your job to show where those posts are if they do indeed exist

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
it is American culture to own guns

...
...

I think that is the source of the problem.

Why?

You have evidence.

He thinks US culture is bad because we like guns. We should conquer the UK to show them how peaceful we are.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You have specific evidence that a culture of guns is directly linked to violence?

1) I have not seen any of your posts that have given this information

2) it is your job to show where those posts are if they do indeed exist

They are in numerous gun threads in this forum. Please refer to the search function.

 whembly wrote:
However, there will always be bullys... but, we do need to create a mechanism to address it.

Mine solution? If my kids were bullied... I'd tell them this:
a) First, tell me
b) Secondly, tell teacher
c) Thirdly, if that doesn't work... tell principle
d) Fourthly, if that doesn't work... feth it, just beat the gak out of him in class in front of everyone and I'll have your full support against the authorities.

Having direct experience with this after A, it goes like this:

I call the teacher and tell them it needs to stop. When that does not work I call the principal/dean and inform them I am telling my child to go to D, and to hurt the other kid as badly as possible as quickly as possible so that the fight is short and brutal. Usually the principal takes care of it when given that warning...

CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, there will always be bullys... but, we do need to create a mechanism to address it.

Mine solution? If my kids were bullied... I'd tell them this:
a) First, tell me
b) Secondly, tell teacher
c) Thirdly, if that doesn't work... tell principle
d) Fourthly, if that doesn't work... feth it, just beat the gak out of him in class in front of everyone and I'll have your full support against the authorities.

Having direct experience with this after A, it goes like this:

I call the teacher and tell them it needs to stop. When that does not work I call the principal/dean and inform them I am telling my child to go to D, and to hurt the other kid as badly as possible as quickly as possible so that the fight is short and brutal. Usually the principal takes care of it when given that warning...

Whembly approved!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You have specific evidence that a culture of guns is directly linked to violence?

1) I have not seen any of your posts that have given this information

2) it is your job to show where those posts are if they do indeed exist

They are in numerous gun threads in this forum. Please refer to the search function.

Thats not how referencing works. i'm not going to go digging through tons of posts. Especially with this forum's fethed up search function.

So till you bring your evidence here, BS.

USA 2010

Murder = 14,748
Robbery = 367,832
Forcible Rape = 84,767
Aggravated Assault = 778,901
Total =

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (SeeExpanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)



Total Murders per 100,000 population per year
USA = 4.2
Canada = 1.9
UK = 1.2
France = 1.1
Holland = 1.1
Australia = 1.0
Switzerland = 0.7
Norway = 0.6
Japan = 0.4

Gun Murders per 100,000 population per year
USA = 3.7
Canada = 0.76
Switzerland = 0.52
France = 0.22
Australia = 0.09
UK = 0.04
Holland = 0.04
Norway = 0.04
Japan = 0.02

Total gun deaths per 100,000 population per year
USA = 10.2
Canada = 4.78
Switzerland = 3.5
France = 3
Norway = 1.78
Holland = 1.1
Australia = 1.05
UK = 0.25
Japan = 0.07


Crime up a lot since 1960s, despite proliferation of guns.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Ok, thats a start.

But all that shows is that we have a higher rate of gun related murders and deaths.

I see no connection between a gun culture and increased gun violence. You are mistaking correlation with causation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Crime up a lot since 1960s, despite proliferation of guns.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Murders have been decreasing since the 90s, however, and continue to do so.

And the decrease actually started a little earlier...

CptJake wrote:
And the decrease actually started a little earlier...

So basically, they started falling before the first assault weapons ban was introduced, and continued to fall after it expired. It's almost as if the assault weapons ban had little to no effect on murders at all...

Are we accepting the previous assault weapons ban as an indicator of future effects?

 d-usa wrote:
Are we accepting the previous assault weapons ban as an indicator of future effects?

Well, that's a good question. Should we be? Some people think the reason the old one didn't do anything is because it wasn't strict enough, and the new one is a lot stricter.

But of course, some people think it was just stupid to begin with since only a fraction of gun murders are committed with what would be considered "assault weapons" under the ban.

 d-usa wrote:
Are we accepting the previous assault weapons ban as an indicator of future effects?

We are accepting that the first was a crap law and should never have been passed, and that the new version is worse and hopefully will die in committee, though it would be fun to see a no amendment floor vote so we know who to primary.

I would definitely defy a federal ban on ice cream, bottom line, They'll pry my spoon from my cold, dead fingers*.

*Well, I'd probably throw it down as I fear-pooped myself at the first sign of a badge. But, in principle, I'd resist.

So the argument is that the last one didn't work, and we should accept that this means a new one will not be effective. Since history should be guiding is.

So can we stop arguing that a new ban will be the first step in taking all our guns away? Since the last one didn't result in total disarmament after all, and history should be our guide...

I think it's more like CptJake said. The first one was a bad law and the second one is a bad (worse) law. The fact that the first one didn't achieve the goals it was intended to doesn't change that.

Not that it really matters

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.

At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

Like Senator Reid said (paraphrasing) this bill's DOA.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You have absolutly no clue how a random sample works. And never taken a statistics class either.

1000 people is a good size for a poll, provided your sample gathering techniques are sound.

No, I think I have a fairly good idea on how random sampling works, I also know that for the outcome to have any basis, the base sample size must in some way correlate to the pool size of the original source. So according to you a ratio of app 1:300,000 is an acceptable ratio to ensure no bias or sheer fluke can possibly intrude into the results. So I can phone 10 people in Chicago and ask if they own guns and that will give me an accurate % of the population that owns guns?

No. They needed to phone more people.

Cheers

CptJake, still no suggestions?
And to everyone, has anyone actually asked teachers/principles if they are willing to CCW?