2013-01-20, 20:09 | Link #1321 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by Lost Cause; 2013-01-20 at 22:46. |
|
2013-01-20, 20:12 | Link #1322 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2013-01-20, 20:14 | Link #1323 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
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
__________________
|
|
2013-01-20, 20:17 | Link #1324 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
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:
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 |
|||
2013-01-20, 20:24 | Link #1325 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
2013-01-20, 20:25 | Link #1326 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
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!
__________________
|
2013-01-20, 20:26 | Link #1327 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-01-20, 20:33 | Link #1328 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Those, I have not found, if you have one, I'll be more than happy to give it a read right now. Quote:
|
||
2013-01-20, 20:37 | Link #1329 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2013-01-20, 20:44 | Link #1330 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-20, 20:52 | Link #1332 |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
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. |
2013-01-20, 20:53 | Link #1333 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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)
__________________
|
2013-01-20, 20:56 | Link #1334 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
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.
__________________
|
2013-01-20, 21:08 | Link #1335 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2013-01-20, 21:09 | Link #1336 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
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:
|
|||
2013-01-20, 21:15 | Link #1337 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-01-20, 21:16 | Link #1338 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-20, 21:36 | Link #1339 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-20, 21:37 | Link #1340 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|