AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-08-30, 13:16   Link #281
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
Don, there already are restrictions, background checks, and a registration of sorts!
First you must posess a valid I.D. In your state, second pass a criminal background check, and third fill out a form 4473 when you purchase a firearm. That form will be kept by the dealer and at some point the ATF will come in and check them. The bachround check is instantly done over the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
Even in Alabama or thoses gun show? I thought than one could get his gun right away after bare minimum check ( if any) there.
This. In most states you can buy a gun second hand (and at gun shows) without filling out any paperwork whatsoever(and no background checks either). With a licensed gun dealer, you do indeed have to fill out paperwork and have a criminal background check, however none of that paperwork entails a test of how sane you are. Still, much better then nothing. There are no penalties on selling a gun second hand to a criminal, as far as I'm aware.

If registration was properly enforced, I think you'd go a long way to keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

@Emeiz_hyde: Absolutely agree.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 14:04   Link #282
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
You can knock them out. Or, run away.
Again, you're not considering the broad implications and their practicality.

Neither are always be practical or even possible. You may not have places nearby to run TO, or you may not be able to run as fast or as long as the attacker, or you may not be capable of running AT ALL.

Similarly with "knocking them out", you think a typical 90-110 lbs. women can just "knock out" a 200 lbs. male (or two) with ease? or any elderly person? Not to mention blunt force trauma straight to the head is also very much capable of killing a person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Now obviously, this is a simplified model
Not only simplified, but also missing just about every single factors that involves a real-life firefight. Your model may work with in a video game, but it bears no semblance to reality.

If you really want to know why, I'd be more than glad to go in-depth with you, but I'd prefer not to make these posts longer than they already are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
It's a lot easier to kill with a gun then without a gun. If neither the assailant or the defender is armed with a gun is armed, the likelihood of death is far lower.
sigh, I'm not sure what species of human are on your planet, but I and most people would have little trouble killing one with a simple knife or a blunt instrument, or a string of rope, or just a good 'ol pillow. As a matter of fact, the latter 4 are used quite often in the commission of murder every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
It's more about hiding. A "home invader" is there for your valuables, and likely isn't even aware you're awake.
Actually, most home invaders target houses that they know are empty, the trouble starts when you get home invaders that don't care if the house is occupied or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
A hit to the side of the head will knock most everyone out.
debunked TV myth #24, next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If there are multiple assailants your situation is fairly hopeless anyway. If everyone has guns it's hopeless, if no one has guns it's hopeless. If you have a gun and they don't you might be able to scare them off, but that can only be ensured if the gun laws are tight.
False.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CriVUV5lh_M

one 65-yr old women vs. 5 armed robbers, guess who ran away?

You still can't get out of the rut you're stuck in, where you think in over-simplified terms and making assumptions on things you're not familiar with, and drawing your conclusion based on those flawed premises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
With the lax gun registration regulation in the US, you're basically guaranteeing every potential criminal will be armed.
Really? you sure you want to make that claim? I suppose it's a reasonable conclusion for you to draw based on your theories.

too bad reality disagrees with you.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...1/crime_091911

According to the FBI, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults"

So 32.5% of the murderers, 58.6% of the robbers, and 79.4% of those who assaulted another did not get your memo that they should've been using a gun

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Perhaps my scenarios are poorly thought out, I can't think of anything. But think of the dozens of countries with low rates of gun ownership and high gun control. Look at the countries that are similar in wealth to the United States, look up their homicide rates. Are people more likely to die, be assaulted or be raped in those countries, where they "can't defend themselves" or in the United States where they "can"?
When you try to make direct comparison like that, you are automatically assuming that no other factors matters at all. Population density, social culture, crime culture, economic, education, religion, and countless other factors, including gun ownership, all plays into a country's violent crime rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
At best you can argue that your likelihood of being raped, assaulted or killed is unrelated to gun ownership, and only related to social factors. But that means that guns don't help americans on the whole defend themselves at all!
It is not a either-or scenario as you're trying to claim, watch out for the logical fallacies again :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Then you agree that guns should be restricted correct? That all guns should be registered, and that all gun owners should be submitted to a psychiatric check to ensure they are of "sound mind".
I have never argued against reasonable gun policy. That being said, just because I agree that there should be reasonable gun policy doesn't mean I think what you're proposing is reasonable.

I have no issue with gun registration, provided that there is no undue cost levied during said registration, but psychiatric check? I have one word for you: GTFO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If you do, there isn't much debate. But if you want there to be no such mandatory registration, no resale bans, you just give carte blanche for every crazy and criminal to just go down to a gun fair and buy a gun second hand. James Holmes did it, Seung Hi Cho did it, and more in the future will do it. Both of these men bought their guns legally, even though both were mentally disturbed.
You can also GTFO with your resale ban too. See, there's plenty to debate about :P

Your argument basically boils down to "the system is imperfect, therefore we should make sweeping and overreaching changes to it!"

Guess we'd best abolish our court system too, after all, innocent people have been, and will continue to be convicted of crimes they did not commit
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 14:11   Link #283
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
stuff
I've never said there should be no regulation, what I've been arguing against this whole time is unreasonable regulation, like the mandatory psych evaluation that Don is proposing.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 15:44   Link #284
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
GundamFan0083's point on us not needing more gun laws is exactly because we already have plenty. The problem is not the number of laws or getting new laws. The problem in enforcement of the existing laws.

We got lots and lots of firearm and other weapons regulations out there, just not all of them are enforced. That is where the problem is.

Politicians make points and look like they are working by making new laws. They don't look like they are going anything when a laws that has been on the books for decades is working. Then they have less crap to push around the committees and less reason for people to want to vote for them.

Law enforcement can only do so much as it is. Without either funding, or direction being given from above, they can't really enforce all the laws we have. Especially if we have thrice dedundancy and perhaps confliction within the law books of laws that were sometimes never removed from the books, even if others laws mostly superceed them.

There are a lot of federal, state, and more local gun laws, restrictions, and other forms of control out there. Just most of them are not enforced.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 16:34   Link #285
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Again, you're not considering the broad implications and their practicality.

Neither are always be practical or even possible. You may not have places nearby to run TO, or you may not be able to run as fast or as long as the attacker, or you may not be capable of running AT ALL.
You can say the same about guns. For instance, how likely is it that your gun will end out being involved in an accident or petty domestic dispute then actually used in self defence?
Quote:
Similarly with "knocking them out", you think a typical 90-110 lbs. women can just "knock out" a 200 lbs. male (or two) with ease? or any elderly person? Not to mention blunt force trauma straight to the head is also very much capable of killing a person.
It's easy to cherry pick individual stories to support your position.
Quote:
Not only simplified, but also missing just about every single factors that involves a real-life firefight. Your model may work with in a video game, but it bears no semblance to reality.

If you really want to know why, I'd be more than glad to go in-depth with you, but I'd prefer not to make these posts longer than they already are.
Go ahead. But I think my model made sense. Keep in mind, that the person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses, so right there they only might have a 70% chance of "victory"(if the attacker has a 30% chance of success). So they'll always be at a disadvantage compared to the attacker. I count a non-debilitating injury (IE an injury after which you're still able to fire back) as a "miss" here.

I won't believe you if you don't explain why. Why should I?
Quote:
sigh, I'm not sure what species of human are on your planet, but I and most people would have little trouble killing one with a simple knife or a blunt instrument, or a string of rope, or just a good 'ol pillow. As a matter of fact, the latter 4 are used quite often in the commission of murder every day.
Usually on people who are asleep. For a person who is awake and alert, anything other then a gun requires a certain amount of skill and strength.
Quote:
Actually, most home invaders target houses that they know are empty, the trouble starts when you get home invaders that don't care if the house is occupied or not.
Or if they're too stupid to figure out if it's empty.
Quote:
debunked TV myth #24, next.
Please debunk it then. Don't say "that's a TV myth" without explaining why.

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CriVUV5lh_M

one 65-yr old women vs. 5 armed robbers, guess who ran away?

You still can't get out of the rut you're stuck in, where you think in over-simplified terms and making assumptions on things you're not familiar with, and drawing your conclusion based on those flawed premises.
So what? It's the exception that proves the rule. The other way around would not be newsworthy.

And rather then saying that what I'm saying is oversimplified and flawed, why don't you take a moment and tell me why? Do you expect me to just believe you without any logical argument to back it up?

I take the time to try to explain why I believe I am correct, I would hope that you would return the favour, how else am I to learn why I am incorrect?

Quote:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...1/crime_091911

According to the FBI, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults"

So 32.5% of the murderers, 58.6% of the robbers, and 79.4% of those who assaulted another did not get your memo that they should've been using a gun
If it was hard to get a gun, those numbers would be less then 10%. And look at how many murders are committed with a gun!


Quote:
When you try to make direct comparison like that, you are automatically assuming that no other factors matters at all. Population density, social culture, crime culture, economic, education, religion, and countless other factors, including gun ownership, all plays into a country's violent crime rate.
Well, clearly other countries are not suffering from waves of crime epidemics because we lack the means to defend ourselves. I think your gun might make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?
Quote:
It is not a either-or scenario as you're trying to claim, watch out for the logical fallacies again :P
Again, why don't you explain to me in my ignorance?

Quote:
I have never argued against reasonable gun policy. That being said, just because I agree that there should be reasonable gun policy doesn't mean I think what you're proposing is reasonable.

I have no issue with gun registration, provided that there is no undue cost levied during said registration, but psychiatric check? I have one word for you: GTFO.
Then how should we prevent the next James Holmes or Seung Hui Cho from getting a gun? Or should we not even bother?

Quote:
You can also GTFO with your resale ban too. See, there's plenty to debate about :P
Then there's really no barrier to any hardened criminal or psychopath getting his paws on a gun. You might as well not have any gun registration at all. It restricts only law abiding citizens, while criminals(and more importantly their weapon suppliers) are completely unhindered.

How else would you stop guns getting into the hands of criminals?
Quote:
Guess we'd best abolish our court system too, after all, innocent people have been, and will continue to be convicted of crimes they did not commit
I quite like jury trials, thank you very much. Good check on an over reaching judiciary.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 18:15   Link #286
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
What a surprise, an anti-gun researcher publishes a paper that finds gun to be more harmful than beneficial when judged by a narrow criteria said anti-gun researcher set up

This has been gone over too many times in this thread already, there is simply no meaningful/practical data out there to objectively compare the benefits and downsides of private gun ownership, unless you can produce one, I suggest you drop this.

Also, I love how you went off on a red-herring instead of addressing my specific response to your faulty premises

Oh ffs, YOU are the one doing the cherry picking here. YOU are the one basing off his entire argument on specific and narrow scenarios. I point out the fact that your idea doesn't work in all (and very common) cases and gave examples, and you accuse me of cherry picking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Go ahead. But I think my model made sense. Keep in mind, that the person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses, so right there they only might have a 70% chance of "victory"(if the attacker has a 30% chance of success). So they'll always be at a disadvantage compared to the attacker. I count a non-debilitating injury (IE an injury after which you're still able to fire back) as a "miss" here.
I suggest you stop trying to talk about gun fights if you don't actually know how they work, and are not interested in doing your homework to learn what it's like IRL.

"The person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses"? What kind of joke is this? You're not AWP'ing it up in Counterstrike ok? Get that Hollywood image of a guy getting tossed in the air and dies whenever a bullet hits him in any part of his body out of your head. Hitting a guy in his "T-box" is the only physiological sure way of immediately stopping an enemy from shooting back, no ifs or buts.

And no, nobody goes for the fking Tbox in a firefight, 'cause it's not practical to try to aim for that tiny area in one.

Seriously, leave the tactical talk to the experts and those who knows what they're talking about before you make yourself look even worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
I won't believe you if you don't explain why. Why should I?
Because any full on meaningful discussion on tactical scenarios is far beyond the scope of this thread (or this forum for that matter), and frankly requires those in the discussion to be at least somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. No offense, at your demonstrated level of knowledge in the area, it won't even be a discussion.

Suffice to say that your impossibly broad and sweeping generalization of a statement that "those who shoot first are always at an advantage" is about as meaningful and accurate as "I won a match of blackjack by asking for two additional cards, therefore I will always win a match of blackjack by asking for two cards".

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Usually on people who are asleep. For a person who is awake and alert, anything other then a gun requires a certain amount of skill and strength.
strength yes, and it's something that often times the victims will lack. Skill? not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Please debunk it then. Don't say "that's a TV myth" without explaining why.
or you could've tried to do a little homework and do some research on the subject

When people pass out after they get hit in the head is due to cerebral concussion - brain slamming into the skull. However, not all cases of concussion leads to unconsciousness, despite what you may see on TV. I've seen guys who suffered multiple concussions from IEDs but never passed out. I've personally had a concussion, and did not pass out, though it would've been nice if I did. You see it happen to athletes all the time too: a catcher in baseball who gets hit by a foul-tip in the face, football or soccer players from collisions. Many suffers concussions, yet never lost consciousness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
So what? It's the exception that proves the rule. The other way around would not be newsworthy.
naw, what made it newsworthy is the hilarious video that caught the criminals running and falling over each other as they tried to run away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
And rather then saying that what I'm saying is oversimplified and flawed, why don't you take a moment and tell me why? Do you expect me to just believe you without any logical argument to back it up?

I take the time to try to explain why I believe I am correct, I would hope that you would return the favour, how else am I to learn why I am incorrect?
...ok, let's see if this helps.

When you want to discuss specific tactical scenarios such as who and what would be an advantage, you need to take into account the specific location and its surrounding environments, the nature of the confrontation, the equipment available to both sides, the number and skill of people that are involved, the mental state of those that are involved, and the goal that each want to accomplish. Each is unique in every case, and all factors would have to be considered. Now if your idea is two guys standing in front of each other wild-wild-west style duking it out, then yea, you probably would prefer to be the guy who shoots first, even though in all practicality it means little if you can't put down accurate fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If it was hard to get a gun, those numbers would be less then 10%. And look at how many murders are committed with a gun!
I'm gonna guess you pulled that 10% from where the sun-don't-shine again. And yes, many murders are committed with a gun, because it's the most effective way to do so. However, that does not mean that those murders would not have been committed in the absence of firearms, to assume so is to commit a logical fallacy, this has already been discussed numerous times already in this thread.


Well, clearly other countries are not suffering from waves of crime epidemics because we lack the means to defend ourselves. I think your gun might make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

christ, I just listed out all those factors which all directly influences violent crime rates, and it just went straight over your head, and you wonder why I've grown tired of trying to explain things to you?

Again, why don't you explain to me in my ignorance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Then how should we prevent the next James Holmes or Seung Hui Cho from getting a gun? Or should we not even bother?
It would be impossible, and frankly is the wrong way to go about it. Those people need to be identified and given help and support by their friends and families or social services BEFORE they decide to become a mass murderer. Once they've gone down that road, the presence or lack thereof of firearms matters little, as they will simply seek other means of causing mass damage. To be honest, I'd much prefer they stick to small arms like they have for the most part. Should all these mass-murderers change their mind and start using alternatives like home-made explosives or chemicals, we would have much, much higher death tolls.

You think that 12 dead at Aurora was bad? if Holmes had forgo his shooting rampage and instead used his car as a VBIED, we'd likely be looking at near triple digit dead at the minimum, if not more.

And more than that, at some point you have to draw the line for what's acceptable for government and society to intrude into the private affairs of lawful citizens. You would subject every gun owner and prospective gun owner for mandatory psychiatric evaluations because a few dozen people died in a couple mass shooting incidents. Then why not mandatory breathalyzer at every bar and restaurant when patrons leave, and every car before it can be started? far more people are killed by drunk drivers every year. And while we're at it, why not a mandatory wakefulness test every hour to make sure drivers aren't sleepy? since a tired driver is just as dangerous as a drunk one. Also, mandatory cellphone jammer in every vehicle to prevent texting-and-driving.

Same thing with smoking cigarettes, why not ban it considering how many people die from it every year? and the strain smokers put on the health care system which has to care for them?

Heck, if you want psych evals so bad, I'd say priests should get them first! to make sure they're not pedofiles! same thing with all teachers, after all, nothing is as important as our children, we must make sure that there are no molesters hidden in their midst!

You see where this goes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Then there's really no barrier to any hardened criminal or psychopath getting his paws on a gun. You might as well not have any gun registration at all. It restricts only law abiding citizens, while criminals(and more importantly their weapon suppliers) are completely unhindered.
Because there is no barrier you can erect that would stop a hardened criminal from getting his hands on a gun in the first place, a resale ban is no exception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
How else would you stop guns getting into the hands of criminals?
Easy, invent a time machine, go back in time and kill everyone that would invent gunpowder
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 18:41   Link #287
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
Even in Alabama or thoses gun show? I thought than one could get his gun right away after bare minimum check ( if any) there.
Yes, even in Alabama and at gun shows. Form 4473 is FEDERAL, and like I said is investigated or looked at by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives...the very same outfit that gave us "Fast and Furious" the debacle in Mexico!
As for person to person sales, that depends on state laws. Mostly it's sold and goes home with its new owner. Thing is the previous owner IS STILL RESPONSIBLE for the gun! So if it used in a crime, that person will be held accountable, unless he can produce some sort of bill of sale.
Also some states do have a waiting period before you may pick up the gun you purchased. It too varies from state to state.
You can do like I did since this thread started and either call your local ATF office, or go online at ATF.gov for questions.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 18:57   Link #288
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
@kyp: Pardon me, but can I ask you what is it about psychiatric evaluation that makes you hate it so much? Wouldn't it help screen people who shows tendencies to make blunders with firearms? (such as crimes or accidental shootings)

Please don't resort to snarky comments and just answer it in a gentlemanly way.
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 19:35   Link #289
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
@kyp: Pardon me, but can I ask you what is it about psychiatric evaluation that makes you hate it so much? Wouldn't it help screen people who shows tendencies to make blunders with firearms? (such as crimes or accidental shootings)

Please don't resort to snarky comments and just answer it in a gentlemanly way.
There are multitudes of issues with the idea.

1. What type of evaluation are you talking about? and how often? If it's the questionnaire type that you may see with some job applications, then it would be practically useless. If you're talking about the type where you do a one-on-one with an actual psychiatrist, then you run into even more problems.

2. Cost - who is going to pay for those examinations? one-on-one sessions are not cheap to say the least. And if you make these the burden of prospective gun owners, then you would've essentially priced the poor and those who have limited disposable income out of being able to exercise their constitutional right. When was the last time you had to pay to have your freedom of speech? I've talked about this in more detail in the previous post, there are some lines a government should not cross, and massive mandatory psychiatric exams on a substantial portion of the general population without reason is one of them.

Realistically speaking, no politician will ever seriously support such a measure, and the Supreme Court (or any lesser district court for that matter) will toss such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment out the door so fast you wouldn't have time to blink.

3. Logistics - Qualified psychiatrist are not a dime a dozen. Roughly 25 to 30% of the entire US population owns firearms, which means you'll have anywhere from around 90 million to 105 million people that would have to undergo said evaluation.

Do you have any idea how long that's going to take? especially when you consider that there is already a worsening shortage of psychiatrists in the US to meet current mental health care needs, the strain an additional 100 million patients will force on top of that system would be unthinkable.

Not only will such scenario likely force those psych evals to become little more than rubber-stamped formality, you'd also exponentially increase the likelihood that more James Holmes and Seung Cho will slip through the critically strained system.

4. Ineffective - Psych evals will not address the two issues you raised, such as crime and accident. Sure, you may weed out some of the mentally unstable, but most criminals are not crazy in the head (nor do many of the crazies starts out that way). As far as accidents go, that has far more to do with proper maintenance and following safety procedures, which has nothing to do with a psychiatric exam.

Last edited by kyp275; 2012-08-30 at 19:48.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 19:55   Link #290
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
@kyp: Pardon me, but can I ask you what is it about psychiatric evaluation that makes you hate it so much? Wouldn't it help screen people who shows tendencies to make blunders with firearms? (such as crimes or accidental shootings)

Please don't resort to snarky comments and just answer it in a gentlemanly way.
I'd like to answer that if it's alright? Because first it violates doctor/patient confidentiality, second because it's an invasion of your privacy.
If your record indicates you been detained for mental health reasons you will be barred from owning a firearm. But it must be there first in order for the authorities to stop the transaction.

Last edited by Lost Cause; 2012-08-30 at 21:27.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 21:15   Link #291
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school

http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/stor...rbElEBOTQ.cspx
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 21:40   Link #292
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
Well, stories like these are all nice and good, but for every good stories like these, exist the bad ones where people were being stupid.

It got me thinking. Will that good bystander not help had he not bring a gun with him? Like how one deranged people can do shit regardless whether he had guns or not, can't good people do good without them?
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 22:30   Link #293
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
Well, stories like these are all nice and good, but for every good stories like these, exist the bad ones where people were being stupid.

It got me thinking. Will that good bystander not help had he not bring a gun with him? Like how one deranged people can do shit regardless whether he had guns or not, can't good people do good without them?
It's one thing to ask a person to pull out his weapon and order a knife-wielding attacker to drop his knife, it's quite another to ask a person to tussle unarmed with a knife-wielding attacker in hand-to-hand fight, especially when the attacker has already demonstrated his willingness to use his weapon and kill.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 22:51   Link #294
Jmac
Sharing my world thru art
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 32
I believe in tighter gun control, but I'm against banning them. Why take away law abiding citizens their right to defend themselves? All that'll do is empower more criminals to commit more crimes. And anyone believing banning guns and tighter control thinking it'll lower gun related violence is fooling themselves. People who want to cause harm or even kill will still find ways to obtain guns.

Living in the midwest where a couple of months my state will allow an open carry policy. Some say that having a gun in plain sight put some at risk since the firearm will be the first thing they go after. However I believe that seeing a gun on your person will force thieves, would rapists, and petty thugs to think twice before committing that crime.

Pretty much if you ban guns, other violent related crimes will rise and still firearms will find their way into criminals hands.

Note: I'm not a gun owner, but when I have children, I will seriously think about getting one, because it's dangerous world we live in. And I have the right to protect my family.
__________________
Jmac is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 23:16   Link #295
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
I agree with Jmac. The question then is, how tight should the law governs gun control, and how should the law deals with the mess an armed conflict left behind? I don't think being a victim gives one the right to kill, so that should be reflected somehow in the law.
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 23:33   Link #296
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
I agree with Jmac. The question then is, how tight should the law governs gun control, and how should the law deals with the mess an armed conflict left behind? I don't think being a victim gives one the right to kill, so that should be reflected somehow in the law.
It already is.

Being a "victim" doesn't automatically grant you the right to use deadly force, there are specific circumstances and conditions outlined in each state's law as to when the use of deadly force is justified.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-30, 23:59   Link #297
Jmac
Sharing my world thru art
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
It already is.

Being a "victim" doesn't automatically grant you the right to use deadly force, there are specific circumstances and conditions outlined in each state's law as to when the use of deadly force is justified.
Agree, depending on the state or commonwealth you live in. I'll use my state for example to clarify the stand-your-ground law or castle doctrine.

Spoiler:
__________________
Jmac is offline  
Old 2012-08-31, 05:16   Link #298
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac View Post
I believe in tighter gun control, but I'm against banning them. Why take away law abiding citizens their right to defend themselves? All that'll do is empower more criminals to commit more crimes.
If that were true, then the opposite should hold true, as well: having guns prevents crime. Across the United States we have some states that are much more heavily armed than others; in that case, the states without many firearms should have more crime than the states that are armed.

Here's some data comparing violent crime (unfortunately there's none for overall crime) with firearms. The "result" tab divides the first column by the second and is misleading - we want to see if crimes increase with low gun ownership and decrease with high gun ownership. If you don't want to go through the list yourself, I'll copy some states for comparison.

Selected states with low gun ownership (less than 3% of households have loaded firearms):
New York - 414.10 (violent crimes per 100,000 people)
Hawaii - 272.80
Ohio - 343.20
North Dakota - 142.40
Maine - 118.00

I've tried to choose states that are geographically diverse, but the gun ownership trends (particularly for those with low firearms) tend to cluster.

Selected states with high gun ownership (greater than 10% of households have loaded firearms):
Louisiana - 729.50 (violent crimes per 100,000 people)
Alaska - 661.20
Montana - 287.50
Mississippi - 291.30
Arkansas - 529.40

Is there a trend? According to these figures, there is no trend based on gun ownership. Some states have high gun ownership and some of the highest violent crime on the list, but plenty of others have high gun ownership and crime that is less than some states with very low gun ownership. Based on this data, we can't make the claim that presence of firearms leads to more violent crime, and while one-off stories like GundamFan0083 posts are nice and make people feel good about the presence of guns, we can't say that firearms avert overall violent crime, either.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-08-31, 06:24   Link #299
Jmac
Sharing my world thru art
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
If that were true, then the opposite should hold true, as well: having guns prevents crime. Across the United States we have some states that are much more heavily armed than others; in that case, the states without many firearms should have more crime than the states that are armed.

Here's some data comparing violent crime (unfortunately there's none for overall crime) with firearms. The "result" tab divides the first column by the second and is misleading - we want to see if crimes increase with low gun ownership and decrease with high gun ownership. If you don't want to go through the list yourself, I'll copy some states for comparison.

Selected states with low gun ownership (less than 3% of households have loaded firearms):
New York - 414.10 (violent crimes per 100,000 people)
Hawaii - 272.80
Ohio - 343.20
North Dakota - 142.40
Maine - 118.00

I've tried to choose states that are geographically diverse, but the gun ownership trends (particularly for those with low firearms) tend to cluster.

Selected states with high gun ownership (greater than 10% of households have loaded firearms):
Louisiana - 729.50 (violent crimes per 100,000 people)
Alaska - 661.20
Montana - 287.50
Mississippi - 291.30
Arkansas - 529.40

Is there a trend? According to these figures, there is no trend based on gun ownership. Some states have high gun ownership and some of the highest violent crime on the list, but plenty of others have high gun ownership and crime that is less than some states with very low gun ownership. Based on this data, we can't make the claim that presence of firearms leads to more violent crime, and while one-off stories like GundamFan0083 posts are nice and make people feel good about the presence of guns, we can't say that firearms avert overall violent crime, either.
There is actually a trend. I checked the highest gun ownership states you listed and they're all red states. Low gun ownership states with the exception of North Dakota are blue states. Think about that for a bit...

FYI: My state, Oklahoma, the crime rate is 499.60 good for 32nd and also has one of the higher percentage of households owning a gun.
__________________
Jmac is offline  
Old 2012-08-31, 06:37   Link #300
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac
There is actually a trend. I checked the highest gun ownership states you listed and they're all red states. Low gun ownership states with the exception of North Dakota are blue states. Think about that for a bit...
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at... political statement? Obviously there are many factors that contribute to a state's violent crime levels, but we're not discussing the causes of crime. We're trying to determine how much of an impact guns have, and if it goes one way or another. Based off of this data, one cannot argue that guns clearly contribute to violent crime, but they also cannot argue that guns prevent violent crime.

To put it more succinctly, criminals are not emboldened by a lack of guns, but they're also not cowed by their presence.

------------------

Because I'm going to have to stop coming to these forums pretty soon, and won't have the time to write long posts, here's a final thought.

Look at the situations where GundamFan0083 and I were fired on. He was in a parking lot when someone who was miffed at him started firing shots; I committed the sin of "driving through a black neighborhood while white" and had my window shot out while stopped at a red light. I think GundamFan0083's situation would have been more frightening, but the point is this: even if either of us had a gun at those particular moments, would we have been able to avert anything? Perhaps GundamFan0083 could have returned fire (which would just increase the risk of collateral damage if he missed), but if his assailant was really in a fit of rage, it wouldn't have stopped the bullets from coming his way unless he killed the guy. In my case, getting out of my vehicle and making a show of a gun on a crowded New York City street... well, I think even those of you who have never been to New York City can guess how that might have played out. It wouldn't have made the shards of my window reassemble.

This isn't to say that guns aren't useful. GundamFan0083 has posted many stories where guns were used to stop crime. I've also heard stories where guns were used in non-confrontational situations for good purposes. Guns are just tools, and like any tool they can be used with a positive purpose. I think that very few, even those who want to further curtail or control guns, would argue with this point.

But how does that relate to our experiences of being fired on? In those situations we have to accept that no matter how well-armed we are, someone who decides to fire a bullet our way isn't going to be stopped. The gun can only ward off the intent; it can't do anything about the bullet that has already been fired.

As I mentioned in one of my first posts on this thread, there are many ways of staving off the intent of firing a bullet that don't involve gun control. I am open, honest, and am not pushing any agenda other than saving lives and preventing injury, so of course I recognize this. However, even those who are against gun control cannot deny that if you reduce the number of guns, the chances of encountering someone with a gun decreases - and that includes people (whether criminals or not) who have ill intent. Having a gun grants you control over certain situations (such as GundamFan0083 being accosted by two men who were warded off by his handgun), but you're still powerless over others (again, the two instances where we were fired upon).

During our discussion something has become clear to me. I tend to focus more on the "others," those situations where a gun is used offensively and without warning; the situations where having a gun on you doesn't offer any real protection. It seems that GundamFan0083 is focusing more on those situations where having a gun allows you to directly influence a situation by negating a firearm-bearing criminal or assailant. Both situations occur, and both are valid. My take is that reducing the number of guns would reduce both instances. (And again to reiterate, this doesn't have to do with numbers of crimes, but the use of firearms in crimes, which has the potential to reduce the magnitude of damage done).

This is partly why I am also unimpressed by the posted stories. Many of them seem to indicate little more than that you needed a gun to stop someone else's gun, and that there's an awful lot of guns in use. If the assailant didn't have a gun, would you have needed yours?

Obviously the gun advocates would say, "yes." Their reasons aren't pure fantasy or ill-reasoned, either. But do those reasons outweigh the deaths due to accidents and crime-related killings that might have been avoided if we had fewer guns? To me, that is where the practical debate lies, and there's no clear answer. Anyone who feels strongly about the issue on either side will likely downplay the reasons of the other side and conclude that the answer is perfectly clear, but I think it's important that we be intellectually honest about this: if the answer were that apparent or the other side's reasonings were very poor, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and the various countries and societies around the world would not have the variations in control laws that they do.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discourse, and thank everyone who took the time to write up their thoughts for doing so
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.