Gun rights/control/ownership

[Slaskia]

Ah, but no.

Now, you can take it or leave it, as I can't find where I got this from. I can absolutely respect if you won't just blindly believe me, but just read it, and decide for yourself whether it sounds plausible:

 

1. As was shown in Bowling for Colombine, the way the criminals get armed is by stealing guns from fine upstanding citizens. Thus, these responsible citizens actually arm the criminals they're so scared of. Fabulous...

2. You know why criminals bring guns to do house-robbings? Well, they do it to feel safe, because they fear gun-toting homeowners. (This is the article I can't find again.)

Bowling for Columbine was made by Michael Moore, someone I don't really consider creditable at all.

 

That said, I do agree that stealing from law abiding citizens is one way criminals can get guns (forgot to include that in my last post as I honestly forgot about that possibility). I wouldn't be surprised though, that most of those thefts are from people that don't properly store their weapons when they are not in use, so the blame is partly on them to begin with (and idiot news agencies that publish locations of registered gun owners: there was a case of this last year, forget what state though).

 

As for item #2, I wouldn't be surprised at that either, considering what I said about criminals being cowards. The homeowner though, usually has the 'home advantage' in that case though (depending on the circumstances, admittedly), not to mention the law abiding citizen tends to be a better shot I believe. Not that they would need to, usually, since most criminals run the moment they see the person is armed anyway (AFAIK anyway: those kinds of cases tend not to be reported, especially if no one was killed/hurt.)

 

edited to add:

 

Which is why I think that, as part of stricter gun control, you should legally be required to attend classes to learn about proper care of, cleaning, safety stuff, and storing of guns and ammunition and then demonstrate that knowledge to obtain a license before you can own a gun. Then, you should need to re-demonstrate that every X years to prove you still know what you're doing to keep your license.

 

Agreed.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Slaskia

[Spelunker]

Which is why I think that, as part of stricter gun control, you should legally be required to attend classes to learn about proper care of, cleaning, safety stuff, and storing of guns and ammunition and then demonstrate that knowledge to obtain a license before you can own a gun. Then, you should need to re-demonstrate that every X years to prove you still know what you're doing to keep your license.

That's scary that a program that basic isn't in place right now.

[Kestra15]

Firearm statistics that gun control advocates don't want to see.

 

Kind of telling, if you ask me....

Pointless statistics are pointless. As Tiki said, not a closed system, and an incredibly biased interpretation of the numbers. You don't need to be a trained peer-reviewer mathematician to see that.

[Fuzzbucket]

The more armed citizens there are, the lower the crime rates go too. Statistics alone show this!

Statistics show that the US has one of the highest crime rates in the world

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_...me-total-crimes

 

The figures are incidents per 100,000 people, not the total number. It is a rate that is normalized across the different countries, so you can compare them without correcting for population. This has already been done. The US has the highest RATE of reported crime.

 

- and also the highest gun ownership.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_gun...pita_by_country (an estimation based on dividing the total amount of civilian owned guns in a country by the total population of that country.)

 

I don't think that one holds AT ALL.

[Riverwillows]

So you are right, cutting welfare wouldn't fix it.... but it would sure help.

Gee, that would have comforted me SO much when I was 25, with young baby, not many job skills, and homeless due to divorce. My family was of the mind, you made your bed...etc.

 

Welfare saved my life, my son's life. I had paid my taxes into it since I was 16, and I took it. I was able to get section 8 housing (another thing that would be cut) instead of my baby raised in a car, and food stamps, so we could eat, and a leg up to getting a real job. Which I did. And now, that I am old and disabled, food stamps make sure I eat right.

 

But yes, I guess I'm one of those lazy shiftless drugged out bums, because I am on the very help YOU guys, (who I know have NEVER gone truly hungry, or homeless) want to cut so YOU don't have to pay taxes. QQ

 

When I was working, I gladly paid taxes to keep welfare programs going because I know what it's like down there in the pitts, and I know that most of the recipients are NOT what the main stream media and Republicans want you to think. They are just.....like......ME.

 

Find something else to cut.

 

 

Just my educated viewpoint.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Riverwillows

[Spelunker]

Gee, that would have comforted me SO much when I was 25, with young baby, not many job skills, and homeless due to divorce. My family was of the mind, you made your bed...etc.

 

Welfare saved my life, my son's life. I had paid my taxes into it since I was 16, and I took it. I was able to get section 8 housing (another thing that would be cut) instead of my baby raised in a car, and food stamps, so we could eat, and a leg up to getting a real job. Which I did. And now, that I am old and disabled, food stamps make sure I eat right.

 

But yes, I guess I'm one of those lazy shiftless drugged out bums, because I am on the very help YOU guys, (who I know have NEVER gone truly hungry, or homeless) want to cut so YOU don't have to pay taxes. QQ

 

When I was working, I gladly paid taxes to keep welfare programs going because I know what it's like down there in the pitts, and I know that most of the recipients are NOT what the main stream media and Republicans want you to think. They are just.....like......ME.

 

 

 

Just my educated viewpoint.

Thank you for the insight, Riverwillows.

[Kai]

People will get access to drugs if they really want them, so there's no point having drug laws either. It would just mean only criminals have access to drugs.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Kai

[Slaskia]

Here's another one from the same site, a bit less biased, I believe.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07...-in-the-debate/

 

(yes, more idiots in the comment section, just ignore them, though I know it's hard)

 

This bit early on is especially true when it comes to the debate:

 

But what is the truth about the use of firearms in crimes? What types of crimes are they used to help commit? How often do fatalities result? How often are crimes prevented because of the presence a gun?

 

There is no shortage of data to answer these questions. But what this data says means different things to different people.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

I think we all can agree that both sides of the debate will twist the data to suit their agenda, no?

[TikindiDragon]

Emphasis mine.

 

I think we all can agree that both sides of the debate will twist the data to suit their agenda, no?

To a certain extent that is true. As the saying goes "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

 

I think this is one of those cases where everyone will see any statistics as supporting their own view point. End of. Although I've always been vaugely fascinated by the idea of the pro-gun lobby that tougher gun control laws = taking everyones guns away, when that couldn't be more wrong. Tougher laws of the ones being suggested would just mean you needed better background checks, that you needed to prove you knew how to use it, and that you had somewhere safe to store them. That's not exactly "taking guns away from people" now is it?

[Kith]

There does appear to be a large amount of flailing on both sides, because somehow...

 

"I want responsible adults to be able to have guns" = "I'm okay with toddlers getting shot"

 

and

 

"I want to make sure people can prove they're responsible before they get a gun" = "I don't want anyone to own a gun"

[Slaskia]

To a certain extent that is true. As the saying goes "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

 

I think this is one of those cases where everyone will see any statistics as supporting their own view point. End of. Although I've always been vaugely fascinated by the idea of the pro-gun lobby that tougher gun control laws = taking everyones guns away, when that couldn't be more wrong. Tougher laws of the ones being suggested would just mean you needed better background checks, that you needed to prove you knew how to use it, and that you had somewhere safe to store them. That's not exactly "taking guns away from people" now is it?

The problem though is that there are people in the government that are trying to ban guns (essentially 'taking them away'), I'm not taking about just automatic ones either. A bill that was recently defeated would have banned 157 guns (Source or if you prefer a more direct source: the list is on the bottom).

 

Now, I'm no gun nut (hate them personally, in fact), but one of the 'military features' that puts a gun under the 'ban' list is a 'threaded barrel'. Erm...don't the majority of rifles/pistols have threaded barrels (AFAIK, it's a 'standard feature', I haven't doubled checked this myself though)?

 

Edit: Ah, I OK, never mine my last paragraph: I was thinking the 'threaded barrel' was something else completely (namely, the groves in the barrel that make the bullet spin when fired). But...what about detachable magazines? A lot of weapons have 'detachable magazines': kind of needed to reload them afterall.....

Edited May 7, 2013 by Slaskia

[TikindiDragon]

The problem though is that there are people in the government that are trying to ban guns (essentially 'taking them away'), I'm not taking about just automatic ones either. A bill that was recently defeated would have banned 157 guns (Source or if you prefer a more direct source: the list is on the bottom).

 

Now, I'm no gun nut (hate them personally, in fact), but one of the 'military features' that puts a gun under the 'ban' list is a 'threaded barrel'. Erm...don't the majority of rifles/pistols have threaded barrels (AFAIK, it's a 'standard feature', I haven't doubled checked this myself though)?

 

Edit: Ah, I OK, never mine my last paragraph: I was thinking the 'threaded barrel' was something else completely (namely, the groves in the barrel that make the bullet spin when fired). But...what about detachable magazines? A lot of weapons have 'detachable magazines': kind of needed to reload them afterall.....

Yeah, that's a rifled barrel you're thinking of.

 

Although I will also note that in one of the links you provided it makes it quite clear that The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill: Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

 

Which, clearly, means there will be no taking away of people's guns. You own it legally, you're fine to keep it. You just won't be able to buy another one like it in the future.

 

And it's not banning all forms of magazine, either - just the quick-load and high capacity versions. The net result is that it'll take you longer than 30 seconds to reloads, and you'll have to do it more frequently.

 

That bill wouldn't not have banned guns. Far from it. What it would have banned were gund with military style modifications, ones produced as military spec, the ability to fire a large number of rounds without re-loading, and the ability to reload at high speed once they were out.

 

Honestly, no part of that ban would have severely inconvinienced anyone owning a gun to hunt with, target shoot with, or for self defence. Saying that it would ban all guns or take away peoples guns was simply scare mongering.

[Alpha1]

My experience tells me that mental health can and does go to hell in very little time, and therefore it should be checked up on fairly closely. That's all.

 

Do the gun owners’ dependents also need to be checked constantly? Should the checkups be for any gun? Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and shotguns killed 356. In a year, swimming pools are responsible for 700, blunt objects more than 300+, and knives/blades 1700+.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...zza-cutter.html

 

Blimey!

 

I would also think there would be an issue with constant checkups being tied to owning a gun. Most wouldn't argue that it isn't prudent to report the ones who are considered violent, but constant checkups would seem ineffective. Here’s a few quotes on just the new confidentiality laws that are appearing:

 

“That new regulations requiring reporting will force clinicians to frequently breach that confidentiality is a grave concern, Appelbaum said, because trust is needed to ensure patients open up.

"This is part of what mental health professionals are discussing very actively among themselves," he said. "The very real concern is that if patients know we are compelled to violate their privacy by revealing what they tell us about their impulses to hurt themselves or other people, they are likely to stay away from therapy altogether."

 

Depression =/= only mental illness. It's simply one of MANY factors that could contribute to a person becoming violent given the right circumstances. Depression alone needn't necessarily 100% ban a person from ever obtaining a gun. But other types of mental health can go to hell quickly, too. IIRC there was somebody bringing up some mental illness that came on really quickly and could be dangerous... Schizophrenia, I think? Can be fairly sudden in the onset of the more dangerous symptoms? I think that was this thread?

 

For most people, it is a gradual deterioration, but schizophrenia has a few subtypes. You’re probably talking about paranoid schizophrenia, which is the most common, but from what I’ve read, the risk of being violent is greatly increased if there is drug abuse.

 

Quite a few actually. The mass of the projectiles, the range of the projectiles and thus the effective range of the weapon, the accuracy of the projectiles, the actual number of shots fired and thus the chances of being able to adapt to a shift in your target, the survivability of being hit by buckshot compared to a standard rifle round...So actually when you do a more rigorous comparison the rifle still comes out the more deadly weapon. After all, if your trollish (and thus incredibly poor) comparison was true then all front-line troops would be armed with single-shot 12 gauges, not automatic rifles.

 

I was referring to a rifle chambered in .22 LR.

 

.22 LR @ 140 ft-lbs vs. 5.56 NATO @ 1350 ft-lbs (what you're referring to) vs. 12 gauge 3 ½ @ 2700 ft-lbs

 

It was only a comparison to a single shot, too. A 12 gauge semi-auto with a drum or 10 shotshell stick will put out a lot more lead hevi-shot.

 

That's scary that a program that basic isn't in place right now.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012...n-safety-class/

 

Ya can’t fix stupid.

 

There are mandatory hunter safety courses if you want to hunt. It doesn’t include everything, though, especially considering that it has been watered down over the years.

 

California has a handgun safety course with stuff like this:

 

True or false : It is okay to point a gun at your friend's head if you think it's unloaded.

 

You get multiple chances to pass it.

 

Pointless statistics are pointless. As Tiki said, not a closed system

It’s all chaos over here.

 

 

As I’ve pointed out before, our minorities skew the numbers.

 

"In 2008, the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000)"

 

Since that was from the DOJ, there's probably even more of a gap because they like to include Hispanics into the numbers but separate them if they are victims.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...es-2010-to-2011

 

If you look at the first pdf on page 32, you’ll notice the UK has always had a lower homicide rate even before the 1997 ban, and they also report the homicides differently. The US count and report crimes based on initial data. The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation/trial.

 

Statistics show that the US has one of the highest crime rates in the world

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_...me-total-crimes

The figures are incidents per 100,000 people, not the total number. It is a rate that is normalized across the different countries, so you can compare them without correcting for population. This has already been done. The US has the highest RATE of reported crime.

 

Those figures obviously aren’t per 100,000.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Alpha1

[Kai]

swimming pool laws in some country are incredible though

[Kestra15]

I think we all can agree that both sides of the debate will twist the data to suit their agenda, no?

Good data cannot be twisted. It is pure and simple truth, regardless of which side is damns

[Shienvien]

There, however, exist incorrect conclusions and cases of insufficient data. Between the hard fact and the conclusion is a number of derivations. You can't only compare gun laws and number of homicides to see how gun laws affect homicides, for instance - you have to take account of the economy, drug usage, you name it...

[Fuzzbucket]

Words fail me

[TikindiDragon]

There, however, exist incorrect conclusions and cases of insufficient data. Between the hard fact and the conclusion is a number of derivations. You can't only compare gun laws and number of homicides to see how gun laws affect homicides, for instance - you have to take account of the economy, drug usage, you name it...

And, in addidition to this, it's very, very difficult to compare violent crime statistics between countries - owing to variations in the way crimes are reported and recorded. Something considered a violent crime in one country may not be recorded as such in another.

 

I must say as former Airport Security that plastic printable gun scares the pants off me. 9/11 happened because security on US internal flights was too lax (and, yes, it really was - they didn't bother to check if you even had a ticket until you got the the gantree), having weapons that are virtually undetectable to security is going to make it all too much of a possibility again.

[Shienvien]

That's old news, fuzzbucket. Besides, making guns at home has always been fairly easy (just the accuracy of those makeshift things tends to be negligible).

[Fuzzbucket]

That's old news, fuzzbucket. Besides, making guns at home has always been fairly easy (just the accuracy of those makeshift things tends to be negligible).

Only finally SHOT a couple of days ago though.

 

And it's the plastic, undetectable side of it - and the ease - that is scary. Doesn't it bother you ?

[Kestra15]

That's old news, fuzzbucket. Besides, making guns at home has always been fairly easy (just the accuracy of those makeshift things tends to be negligible).

Hence why this is new news - we have an accurate firearm, not a one-shot Saturday-night special.

[Fuzzbucket]

Hence why this is new news - we have an accurate firearm, not a one-shot Saturday-night special.

Exactly. Thanks, Kestra.

[Shienvien]

The first sentence was about the printing-part - that's been around for over a year. The second sentence was generic. (And inaccuracy doesn't mean it can't kill.)

[Kestra15]

The first sentence was about the printing-part - that's been around for over a year. The second sentence was generic. (And inaccuracy doesn't mean it can't kill.)

No, but inaccuracy severely decreases your chances, hence "accuracy" being pointed out as the difference with this weapon; it isn't an innaccurate, home-made Saturday-night-special, this is a working firearm.

 

More accurate weapon + more rounds capable of being fired => higher chance of being wounded => higher chance of life-threatening injury => higher chance of death. Again no bias, just plain mathematics.

 

Since it can be printed and the blueprints are free to download, that means there is more chance of these weapons being available to the public. Although the prohibitive cost of 3D printers does mean that for now it is beyond the reach of the everyday citizen for the most part, we are still looking at a new avenue in which guns can come into circulation little/no background checks. Regardless of your views on gun control the plain fact of the matter is this; the ability to produce firearms through 3D printing technology increases the potential for guns to be available to the public.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Kestra15

[Vhale]

I lol'd

 

We had guns at a young age, 8-10ish? But only BB guns and pellet guns. We weren't allowed rifles until much older.