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 2013-01-20, 20:09   Link #1321
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
Correct.

Innocent until proven guilty. The woman had no right to shoot them.

Not even police had any right to shoot at anyone (since they are assumed innocent) before they are judged guilty by court.
So I suppose the robber had the right to break into her HOME and STEAL?
That's sort of like saying hurricane Sandy did the economy a great service by forceing those of us affected to buy new things to replace that which was destroyed.
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!

Last edited by Lost Cause; 2013-01-20 at 22:46.
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:12   Link #1322
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Bans are all or nothing. Local bans or banning particular types of weapons don't work, nor can the underground market be ignored.
Oh, agreed. That's why city and state bans don't work. That's why it needs to be a country-wide ban. Whether it would work in the US, is another story, but as a scientist, I would like to experiment with the possibility. Ideally, get 20 years of data after a ban, and see if things are better or worse. In the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws. So, bans, or at least heavy regulation, does seem to work. But it needs to be countrywide.

It's also important to understand where the underground guns come from. Ultimately, every gun is manufactured somewhere, so once we ban guns here, we can see what non-US guns end up in criminal hands.

Although personally, I'd probably be satisfied with a handgun ban, at least to start. That addresses the vast majority of deaths where a gun was involved. I'd probably allow smart gun technology on a handgun, though, but any smart gun designs must get ATF approval first.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:14   Link #1323
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
It's not so strange. Fire-arms provide a massive first-strike advantage. I can imagine LE would prefer that the individuals they are likely to face wouldn't have easy access to guns.
And there in lies the quandry Bri.
Laying aside the 2nd amendment for the moment, in the US the criminal element already has access to millions of weapons that have been in circulation for the better part of a century.
Firearms don't have an expiration date, they last a long time.
Therefore, if, as you say, the police require the level of weaponry they currently have to deal with violent crime, then so does the population.
Bring the 2nd amendment back into the conversation and the efficacy of any ban to deter violent crime at this point is moot.
In fact it may only escalate violent crime as it has in other countries such as the UK and Australia.

I'll repost the Telegraph's story with this link.

Here is the report directly from the Australian Institute of Criminology:

The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased. Victimisation survey data also do not illuminate the most significant recorded increase in violent victimisation, against children, as they are collected less frequently and only apply to those aged at least over 15 years. The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender.

Judy Putt
General Manager, Research
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:17   Link #1324
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Oh, of course. And as your own link says, "rates are more for comparative purposes then absolute numbers." So, while the exact numbers maybe not be entirely accurate, the percentage is. That's why I included the percentage. So, 67% is roughly accurate for the percentage of people killed by a gun in 2009, and 1.4% is roughly accurate. That's how statistics work. You get a sample size and develop %'s. The larger the sample size, the more accurate it is.
Sigh, please do not twist the words, the "rate" here refers to the per-capita ratio, while the "absolute number" refers to the final numbers, as in 10,000 murders , 50,000 assaults etc., the "comparative purpose" it's talking about is that when you're comparing two different locales, the rate is more useful as comparing the total number of murders in a city with a population of 2 million with one that has 200 would be pointless, it does not mean what you're claiming here.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that you apparently chose to skip all the parts where it talked about the deficiencies with the various crime statistic figures, so again, per the FBI:

Quote:
These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo
That's why, in the past election, the poll results we got were so accurate in predicting the winners.
Because election polling = crime statistics

also, I do not appreciate your continued insinuations, DQ can discuss the issue without taking cheap shots, why can't you?

and FYI, I voted democrat in 2012, I guess that makes me a liberal leftist
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:24   Link #1325
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
It doesn't surprise me one bit that you apparently chose to skip all the parts where it talked about the deficiencies with the various crime statistic figures, so again, per the FBI:
Partly because I mostly agreed with them. I don't know what else you want. I admitted as much that they weren't perfect. I only said they were a good start, and allows us to at least determine a rough %, and track things year to year.

Thing is, when I point to the only numbers we have available, you tend to want to dismiss them. If we take your route, we have no numbers at all to work with, and thus no evidence with which to base decision-making around. Are there any numbers you trust? Or is all data so hopelessly flawed, that it can never be used? This was why I pointed to election polling data, to flatly point out that numbers can be right. Nate Silver was right.

Quote:
also, I do not appreciate your continued insinuations, DQ can discuss the issue without taking cheap shots, why can't you?

and FYI, I voted democrat in 2012, I guess that makes me a liberal leftist
Potshot? I was merely requoting the words used in a certain book pointed out to me as a source to take a look at. If it bothers you, perhaps you'd have an issue with that particular book as well? Would you say it is a bad source for using those words?
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:25   Link #1326
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
I seriously doubt you'd be satisfied with having "smart guns" only. Eventually one Woukd be used and you'd be out to ban them too!
Funny you should bring up Australia. Seems you are allowed to own certain weapons down under, grylsyjager has some pretty awesome bolt action rifles and pictures of them in the General Gun Thread. And you can still own the old Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle there too. It once had the reputation of being the fastest manually operated rifle used in combat, and held 10 bullets.

And if we're going to ban anything, let's ban sensationalistic media and opinionated rhetoric from uniformed news people!
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:26   Link #1327
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
And there in lies the quandry Bri.
Laying aside the 2nd amendment for the moment, in the US the criminal element already has access to millions of weapons that have been in circulation for the better part of a century.
Firearms don't have an expiration date, they last a long time.
Therefore, if, as you say, the police require the level of weaponry they currently have to deal with violent crime, then so does the population.
Indeed. It is a matter of perspective. In theory, all individuals in a country can be better off when they own guns while society as a whole is worse off. Classic prisoner dilemma.
Bri is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:33   Link #1328
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Thing is, when I point to the only numbers we have available, you tend to want to dismiss them. If we take your route, we have no numbers at all to work with, and thus no evidence with which to base decision-making around. Are there any numbers you trust? Or is all data so hopelessly flawed, that it can never be used?
I don't dismiss them, I just don't place nearly as much weight on them due to their limitations as you do. I've never said they should be ignored, but rather that they need to be looked at more closely, and more comprehensive look given that includes other important factors. You want a ban based on studies that only looks at how much guns there are vs. how many gun deaths there are, I want studies that not only look at those two, but also poverty, organized crime like drug trade, gangs, the positive effects of gun ownership etc.

Those, I have not found, if you have one, I'll be more than happy to give it a read right now.

Quote:
Potshot? I was merely requoting the words used in a certain book pointed out to me as a source to take a look at. If it bothers you, perhaps you'd have an issue with that particular book as well? Would you say it is a bad source for using those words?
I was referring to the bit about the GOP ignoring polling results, not the book.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:37   Link #1329
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
So I suppose the robber had the right to break into her HOME and STEAL?
That's sort of like saying hurricane Sandy did the economy a great service by for ding those of us affected to buy new things to replace that which was destroyed.
But Lost Cause, you know she should have just killed him by other means.
Maybe a broomstick, or a frying pan, or whatever she had on hand.
After all, her life isn't worth letting the peasants have arms.
See it's not that she killed him, it's that a gun was used that troubles the emotionally disturbed about this.

If a mass murderer uses arson as a means of mass killing, that doesn't count.
Like in the Chilers Palace Hostel Fire in Australia where 15 people were burned to death by an arsonist.
No gun, so it just doesn't count.

Then there's the Monash University shooting in 2002, but that really didn't
count because he only killed 2 and injured 5.

And according to the Australian PM, the arsonist who caused the Bushfires in 2009 was a mass murder(s) who killed 173 people.

My point being that mass murderers may use firearms, but they also use many other means to do their horrific deeds and thus should be removed from the debate over gun control.
__________________

Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2013-01-20 at 20:58.
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:44   Link #1330
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Indeed. It is a matter of perspective. In theory, all individuals in a country can be better off when they own guns while society as a whole is worse off. Classic prisoner dilemma.
That is the problem and there are many reasons for it.
Our society is innundated with gangs, from the MS-13 gangs of Mexico, to the Crips and Bloods.
These individuals have access to arms the average citizen does not.
Much of that is from illegal sources both into and out of Mexico that aren't over the counter firearms from any local gun store.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:44   Link #1331
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
My point being that mass murderers may use firearms, but they also use many other means to do their horrific deeds and thus should be removed from the debate over gun control.
Why do they choose to use guns then?
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:52   Link #1332
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Why do they choose to use guns then?
Ease of use, fame, and most importantly I think is that it's personal, most want to go out in a blaze of glory, often times as a way for them to personally exact revenge from perceived wrongs from society.

If sheer casualty is the goal, there are more effective ways and places to kill, and they wouldn't kill themselves at the first sight of armed resistance.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:53   Link #1333
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
In science and debate, giving someone who has an emotional attachment to one side of an argument the task of supporting and arguing for the opposite position is quite useful. The scientist sets up the hypothesis and then shoots at it to try and break it. The debater expresses the opposite position from their favorite and finds data to support that opposite view.

Maybe it would be useful for people to try that exercise. Have an opposite day.

(and no, I don't mean act like a cartoon loon. act like a lawyer hired to defend a position or scientist doing his own cross-checks)
Vexx is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 20:56   Link #1334
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Why do they choose to use guns then?
I will go with Doctor Park Dietz reasons, that being the image of it.
The recent shooters (since Columbine) all share commonality in that they do their deeds where they know they will not be opposed, they use weapons that match their fantasies of who they think they are, and they know that using a firearm will get them the national fame they seek.

If the media had taken Dr. Dietz's professional recomendation and stopped reporting on these incidents in the manner that they do, the chances of copycats would be lessened.

However, when you know you're going to be infamous and that's what you want, the media has certainly proven their willingness to give it to these people, so long as they use a gun.

__________________________________________________ ____________________

On a different subject, here's an excellent video showing the difference in destructive firepower between an AR-15 and a Duck Hunting shotgun.

__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:08   Link #1335
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
My point being that mass murderers may use firearms, but they also use many other means to do their horrific deeds and thus should be removed from the debate over gun control.
Depends on the type of mass murderer I think.

The terrorist type will plan ahead for months, maybe years. Like McVeigh, Harris & Klebold and Brevik but also the 11 september terrorists. No ban is going to stop them. These people will simply select what will do the most damage they can think off. They are only limited by funds and imagination.

The ones that simply snap and go postal overnight. Well, gun control might effect them as they are likely to grab whatever is available at the time.
Bri is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:09   Link #1336
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
I seriously doubt you'd be satisfied with having "smart guns" only. Eventually one Woukd be used and you'd be out to ban them too!
While you are free to doubt, I have admitted as much that I view a ban as experiment. Knives and chemicals and explosives can still kill people, but I am not advocating banning those. From all the data I have seen(15,000 to 30,000 people dead from guns each year), I have simply come to the conclusion that guns cause more harm then they prevent. There are, of course, individual exceptions.

And note also, that I don't think we should ban hunting rifles or shotguns. Merely that, because handguns cause the vast majority of gun-related death, banning handguns would be the most productive route. I chose to allow smart guns, because from all data I have seen thus far, while the gun owner is generally not a threat and a lawful member of society... the gun owner's family and friends can be. The Newtown shooter's mother was a law-abiding gun owner. Her son wasn't.

That's one thing gun owners need to realize in this discussion; sure, I'll readily admit that concealed-carry gun owners commit crimes at something like 1/20th the rate of the general population and police officers. We fully recognize that *you* are not a threat. What is a threat, are your family and the people you know. Either you gun gets stolen, or used by someone else without your control... and we get the Newtown shooter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
I don't dismiss them, I just don't place nearly as much weight on them due to their limitations as you do. I've never said they should be ignored, but rather that they need to be looked at more closely, and more comprehensive look given that includes other important factors. You want a ban based on studies that only looks at how much guns there are vs. how many gun deaths there are, I want studies that not only look at those two, but also poverty, organized crime like drug trade, gangs, the positive effects of gun ownership etc.

Those, I have not found, if you have one, I'll be more than happy to give it a read right now.
The FBI statistics, if you looked through all their charts, also have gun deaths broken down by sex and race, too. And although I don't have the study handy, I do recall reading that a lot of gun deaths happen in poorer black neighborhoods. So, if you want that angle to take the pressure of guns, I'll freely give it to you.

But correct if I'm wrong... it sounds like you are looking for other things to blame, rather than guns. And I'll admit there are other factors, but one fact *does* remain: as long as people have access to guns, they can kill a far greater number of people, than they ever could without them. You will never remove man's innate ability to commit violence. Violent crime will always be with us. What we can remove, is the ability for a single person to cause death on a mass scale.

Well, I could quote some leftist socialist policies that may alleviate things, as income inequality has hinted at in a study I read awhile back, as one cause of increased crime. So, taxing the rich much more to provide everyone with free health care, and perhaps even a basic income, would do wonders for the crime rate. I think you'd have better luck getting rid of handguns, though.

Quote:
I was referring to the bit about the GOP ignoring polling results, not the book.
And I brought that up as an example of what people look like, who choose to ignore the gathered scientific data. I don't want to look like that, and I follow scientific consensus, so I tend to side with the published, peer-reviewed studies.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:15   Link #1337
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Ease of use, fame, and most importantly I think is that it's personal, most want to go out in a blaze of glory, often times as a way for them to personally exact revenge from perceived wrongs from society.

If sheer casualty is the goal, there are more effective ways and places to kill, and they wouldn't kill themselves at the first sight of armed resistance.
So maybe the gun plays into the power fantasy that drives them to do such a thing...
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:16   Link #1338
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Depends on the type of mass murderer I think.

The terrorist type will plan ahead for months, maybe years. Like McVeigh, Harris & Klebold and Brevik but also the 11 september terrorists. No ban is going to stop them. These people will simply select what will do the most damage they can think off. They are only limited by funds and imagination.

The ones that simply snap and go postal overnight. Well, gun control might effect them as they are likely to grab whatever is available at the time.
Local authorities out here in Colorado are saying that James Holmes planned his attack for months as well.
He didn't just snap, and even without the firearms, he could just as easily have used the bombs he constructed.

The investigation into Adam Lanza is going into the same direction.
They believe he planned for a much larger amount of carnage but stopped when the police finally arrived some 20 minutes later.
Clearly, just like in the Oregon mall shooting, had an officer or CCW permit holder been at that school, things may have turned out much differently.

Jared Laughner is certainly one of those that just snapped, so some of these insane individuals do act in the manner as you suggest, but many do not.
Thus we see before us here in the US a very complicated issue that cannot be solved by some simplistic assault on the rights of people who will never committ such an act, as the vast numbers of gun owners, 80-100,000,000+, clearly illustrates.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:36   Link #1339
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Quote:
It would be one path. Agree or disagree: If there are fewer to no guns, there are fewer to no gun deaths.
My question would be why focus on that in a country that has firearms bans? Wouldn't it be more helpful to see if the number of deaths decreased? Not deaths by guns, but just deaths. If the number of deaths (and likely related problems generally associated with guns in a country that still has them legal) decreases in a country with gun bans, than you might have something. But only looking at "deaths caused by guns" is generally not very useful.

Sure, less people died due to a gun, but did less people die. As there are many ways to die, that is why death by violence would be more logical to research.

That is, if all one cares about is preventing death. Generally considered a noble cause. However, what does this prevention of death cause? Is there more thief? More rape? More assaults that leave more people wounded than when there were guns that caused deaths?

These can be interesting questions. Some may have answers. Others do not. And while experimentation is sometimes a good thing, sometimes the cost may be too high.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:37   Link #1340
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Clearly, just like in the Oregon mall shooting, had an officer or CCW permit holder been at that school, things may have turned out much differently.
Or they might just have been another casualty or caused collateral damage. I believe guns can be useful for home defense, but amateur heroics is often best left to trained law enforcement officers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Jared Laughner is certainly one of those that just snapped, so some of these insane individuals do act in the manner as you suggest, but many do not.
Thus we see before us here in the US a very complicated issue that cannot be solved by some simplistic assault on the rights of people who will never committ such an act, as the vast numbers of gun owners, 80-100,000,000+, clearly illustrates.
Depends on the measures and proportionality. For example I think cool-off periods before purchase can be quite sensible to prevent crime passionel's while not overly impacting gun-owners rights. Mandatory training for gun use and storage doesn't sound like a bad idea either. With rights come responsibility, and not every gun owner will take responsibility without a little nudge.
Bri 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 07:19.


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