2012-08-31, 06:50 | Link #301 | |
Sharing my world thru art
Artist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 41
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 08:24 | Link #302 | |
Schwing!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 39
|
GOP wants broader gun rights, unlimited clips.
Quote:
|
|
2012-08-31, 08:33 | Link #303 |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
If the intent is self-defense, I don't see the point of going beyond handguns. Maybe a lever-action at home to scare most invaders, but you wouldn't bring that or SMGs to public places would you?
__________________
|
2012-08-31, 08:37 | Link #304 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Something that bears thinking about is that while something like 50% of households own a gun, only a smaller fraction actually practice concealed carry. According to the figures, there are 8 million active concealed carry licenses(and growing). While that is indeed a big number, that's only 3% of the adult population of the United States. Meanwhile, as can be seen in figures from kyp's post, 67% of homicides, 41% of robberies and 20% of assaults took place using a gun. Now I can't speak for homicides and assaults(they can take place anywhere), but Robberies take place outside the home (burglary is inside the home.
While people might be able to adequately defend themselves inside their home with a gun, most people still don't choose to exercise their right to defend themselves outside it. In a potential robbery, the chance of the robber meeting a person with a (legally) carried gun is still negligible, and women, who are more vulnerable, are much less likely to carry then men. As it is right now, criminals are attacking with guns, while only a very small minority are legally defending themselves. Most are leaving their guns at home unattended and presumably unused. Though some states do have very high rates of concealed carry permits, namely Iowa, Indiana and Georgia, at about 10% each. Those states have 294, 333 and 493 violent crimes per 100,000 people. An interesting case is Vermont and New Hampshire, one has unrestricted concealed carry (and has had so for a very long time), while neighbouring New Hampshire has been more restrictive. Vermont has a violent crime rate of 124 while New Hampshire is 137, which I don't think is statistically significant. To be honest, I don't see any major trends. Perhaps things would be different if the numbers of concealed carry permit holders who exercised their right was higher. But if most Americans don't want to carry around their weapons with them, I can't see them doing much to protect people. |
2012-08-31, 09:54 | Link #305 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Fresno County Woman Stops Kidnapping By Pulling Gun on Home Intruder
http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Fre...167733085.html Bystander Fired Deadly Shot, Not Officer http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526
__________________
|
2012-09-01, 14:01 | Link #306 | |||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Are you ladies and gents putting a hex on me or something?
My MSI 870 g45 motherboard died yesterday (no video card detected and card works), so now I'm on my laptop (ick). I have some time now to post...amazing! Quote:
Some will flee if challenged with a firearm, others will not. Quote:
Quote:
The ATF is only aware of the firearms that have been purchased since 1968, anything made before that is a complete unknown for the most part because records were not kept (Form 4473 not required). Reducing the number of firearms is just not practical nor realistic at this point in US history. Gun owners will (for the most part) not turn in their weapons willingly, and any attempt at confication will lead to a blood bath that nobody wants but many are willing to fight. Because of the level of resistence that will happen in any attempt to reduce access to firearms, we must take into account if such a reduction in firearms will actually have any meaningful effect on the incidences where a firearm is ued in a crime and/or assault (since that is the crux of what we are all discussing here). A rather controversial study was done on this subject by Don B. Kates* and Gary Mauser** *Don B. Kates (Ll.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. **Gary Mauser (Ph.D., U. California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada. Their conclusion was as follows: This article has reviewed a goodly amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil, at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the "more guns = more death/fewer guns = less death mantra, especially since they propose public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations which imposed stringent gun controls achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those things are precisely what is not demonstrated when a large number of nations are compared across the world. Over a decade ago University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the U.S. and Canada to determine whether Canada's much more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition: If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources. When studied properly, and with all the available evidence, the conclusion to this sitution is clear. Gun control is a failure, that's why I keep repeating it like a broken record. Removed a lot of this post to focus on the issue of gun control, and not our snarky fun, so as to keep us out of trouble. I'll attempt to keep the tone of my post as professional as possible. Quote:
As a former Thermo-Nuclear Weapons Specialist of the USAF, a powerful weapon to me is a MIRV or an ALCM, or a B83 (I hated working on that damn bomb, most were older than me). A grenade launcher is a firecracker compared to that, and a firearm is a spit-ball. Also, the lethality of a firearm varies by type and skill of the user, as I've demonstrated throughout this entire thread. A level action rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter is more deadly than a semi-auto rifle in the hands of an incompetent one. Whereas a shotgun is the most deadly in CQB irregardless of skill level. This is why the reduction of say "military-style" rifles with high capacity magazines does nothing to reduce crime...at all. The magnitude of a melee weapon such as a firearm or blade is determined by the skill of the person using it, not the weapon itself. Take for example the latest shooting in Trenton NJ. That ex-marine used a civilian AK-47 look-a-like. He fired 16 rounds in a crowded supermarket and killed 2 people. Now take the latest mass killing by knife in Britain, six people were killed in an apartment building, two of them children. Which was more deadly, the knife or the gun? Obviously the knife. The Colorado theater shooting is also a good example. Which was more deadly, the AR-15 or the Remington 870 shotgun? Obviously the shotgun. So we see that magnitude of lethality does not depend on the weapon used when dealing with small arms. It has to do will the person committing the crime: how well they planned their attack, their skill with the weapon of choice, and the place chosen for their deed. Prevention of these types of attacks requires the public to become more diligent and responsible for their own safety. Quote:
It's magical thinking to believe that guns will evaporate just by banning most of them. The sheer magnitude of force that would be required to reduce the number of firearms in the US doesn't justify the cost in both lives and materiale to execute such an operation. Starting a civil war in the name of public safety is illogial. Quote:
Choosing to take responsibility for your own personal safety by owning a firearm, learning how to use it correctly (via the Civilian Marksmanship Program or the like), and being aware of your surroundings is a very positive step in the right direction for not only the individual but also for society as a whole. Quote:
Also, I'm a classical Liberal, that means I understand the balance between individualism and cooperativism. Quote:
The abortion argument is only partially removed from this one. The reason for this is due to the fact that life is ended in both situations. Whether by gun or abortion, a life comes to an end. I believe we can recognize that, yes? Therefore, if a position is taken that life can be ended under specific conditions, we must recognize that killing is distinct from murder. What is the difference? Killing is ending a life in a justifiable manner for the purpose of protection, mercy, or similar condition. Abortion falls into this realm of thought IMHO, as does killing for self defense, the death penalty, warfare, killing animals for food, or the like. Murder on the other hand is killing with intent to profit or gain off the death for entirely selfish purposes. As when a spouse hires a hit-man/woman to kill their husband/wife for the insurance money. Or a rapist kills his/her victim to keep from being caught. Or a madman enters a theater to mow down as many people as possible to make himself feel powerful. Or a national leader chooses to wipe out a whole race/ethnic group because they look different or aren't of the correct political persuation. Quote:
Quote:
Attempts to reduce accidental deaths from all causes usually hinges on education and again personal responsibilty: don't drive drunk or drive fast; don't let your children have access to poison or guns, be careful when climbing icy stairs or when cleaning your weapon, etc, et nausium. Your example of the speed limit is invalid since the state has a monetary motive to impose such a limit in the form of revenue generation via speed traps and other schemes. It can be argued that safety is a secondary not a primary motivator for such speed restrictions. If we were to apply the same types of restrictions on cars that are applied to guns (magazine bans, cosmetic bans, etc), you would NOT BE ABLE to drive above 55 mph because your car would be unable to go that fast, no sportscars would exist, no SUVs would exist, and we would be limited to whatever the nanny state imposed upon us. That is a significant difference than simply asking people to take responsibility for themselves and not drive faster than 55 mph (or whatever the limit may be for a particular street). Therefore, if we are talking about public safety, we must first determine if the restrictions proposed are more or less effective then simply an educational campaign to get people to take the initiative themselves and prevent these accidents as best they can. The safety issue really is a separate issue entirely than the gun-control issue, however many gun-control advocates poison the waters of the debate by introducing this issue when it really is not part of the debate. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||||||
2012-12-14, 15:56 | Link #307 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Another shooting today -- and no one bothered to bring this thread back up. Well, looks like I have to do it:
Quote:
Point #6 -- I find funny. For the most part -- as a country, America is pathetic in this department. As long as nothing is done about this, these shootings WILL continue; AND I most certainly do EXPECT the next one to occur within 1-2 years.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-14, 16:00 | Link #309 |
Level 5 Pyrokineticist
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
|
If everyone wants to have a calm, rational debate about it then lets have it; The argument that Criminals will commit crimes with or without guns is ridiculous. Ah yes, Criminals won't follow laws, so lets make it so easy for them to commit the crime just so we keep our right to protect our backyards from the evil clutches of King George. It is just pathetic how touchy America is about its guns. Not even tougher laws, not an outright ban are good enough, the second amendment is on a pedestal like an ornament to the archaic. Lets go shoot some cans with our M16 because it gives us that....funny feeling.
I tell you what, if the country were this defensive of human rights, specifically the rights of minorities, it would be a shitload better place. There are not many things Americans are as passionate about as its guns and everytime I've brought it up, I've been shouted down as if I'm an advocate for a blanket ban. I haven't got the time or the patience for such infantile crap. I do not support a blanket ban, I support rational and logical safeguards that DO NOT EXIST CURRENTLY [mod edited]. Last edited by relentlessflame; 2012-12-14 at 16:14. |
2012-12-14, 16:05 | Link #310 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
But I have to ask: What is the purpose for people to get high capacity clips? Deer hunting?
__________________
|
|
2012-12-14, 16:08 | Link #311 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
"Rational and logical safeguards"
Such as what? We have lots of gun laws. The largest problem is that most are not enforced or not enforcible (depending on the law in question). Also, state to state, the situations of the citizens of that state have different needs when it comes ot guns. Some only want them for recreation. Others want them for defense, since the police will not or cannot get to them in a reasonable amount of time. Others simply need them for living (hunters and farmers, particularly those that live away from from the cities). And lastly we have those that want them based on the notion they are the US or State militia and are suppose to have them to defend the nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-14, 16:14 | Link #312 | ||
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
Laws? Impose them at the production/business end. Limit general public weapons to just that -- civilian weapons. Are there laws banning military grade weaponry to civilians? I sure freaking hope so. Quote:
I have to ask you: What's more important: lives or recreational convenience?
__________________
|
||
2012-12-14, 16:15 | Link #313 | |
Level 5 Pyrokineticist
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-14, 16:25 | Link #314 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
@Ithekro: Everything you state may be what people feel. So, the question is, how do you tell people their feelings are wrong? I mean, just cause someone feels something doesn't mean we should care, people overreact all the time. See: Dating.
Seriously speaking here, the argument about needing a gun to defend yourself is somewhat circular as you can see here: 1) Criminals have easy access to guns 2) Can't depend on police 3) Have to be able to have easy access to guns Anyways, this goes fundamentally to the nature of the U.S. and it's citizens. Does a regular person not vested in the authority of government have the authority to use force and how much force is still considered legitimate? Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool designed to magnify the use of "force" or let's be honest here "violence" Lincoln amended the constitution to abolish slavery. The constitution also at one point considered a slave 3/5ths of a person. Just cause the constitution says you have the right to bear arms doesn't make it a good idea. Since some of us are watching "Girls und Panzer" -- should people be allowed to all own tanks working turret and all? Why and why not? I mean: It's a tool. I can use it to clear trees. I can drive it easily in the snow. PS: I think guns are cool. I actually go to the shooting range and may plan to buy one myself. I do think however that the world would be a safer place if no one owned any Reply hazy, ask again later |
2012-12-14, 16:25 | Link #315 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Arms sales are big business (not just civilian sales in the US). There are plenty of "military grade" pistols sold to civilians...mainly because a lot of them were civilian designs repurposed for military use.
Many of the semi-automatic rifles that look like military grade weapons are secondary line production that remove the fully automatic parts (and in many cases make it so you can't just convert it back easily) for sale to civilians. Why? Because some people think they look cool. This also goes the other way. In instances of the "Assualt Weapons Ban" of the 1990s, it was mainly aimed at weapons that looked scary. No actually substance to it since the weapons these are modeled after are already illegal since the 1930s (machines guns of any sort). For instance, you should not be able to purchase a M16 or AK47 in the United States without a special permit for collectors, museums, or Hollywood (would usually falls under collectors I believe). You can however by guns that look like these weapons, but are not fully automatic nor, have three round burst setting on it either. They can fire only one shot at a time, like any other rifle.
__________________
|
2012-12-14, 16:28 | Link #316 | ||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2012-12-14, 16:33 | Link #317 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
For example: Hummers The military version is the Humvee. Civilians get Hummers. While both are capable of off-roading, the Humvee is more robust, as it is not primarily driven on the roads.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-14, 16:34 | Link #318 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I would point out that the overfunded military is one of those things that those that think in terms of the old State malitia are worried about. The key phrase is "threats foreign and domestic" Meaning they see the 2nd Amendment as a potental curb on the US Government from becoming a tyrannical state towards its own people.
__________________
|
2012-12-14, 16:37 | Link #319 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2012-12-14, 16:37 | Link #320 | ||
Level 5 Pyrokineticist
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|