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, 21:37   Link #1341
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
And the body armor pretty much ensured that no one with a gun could have taken them down.

And if they didn't have access to guns, there is no way they could have taken down as many people.

We can play this game all we like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
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.
You bring up interesting questions. Well, how about this?

Homicide rate for various countries (per 100k people):
United States: 4.8
Canada: 1.6
United Kingdom: 1.2
Australia: 1.0
Japan: 0.4

Huh. Countries with heavy gun regulation in effect, have a lower homicide rate, too. And if we don't want to look at other countries, we have the chart comparing states. Isn't it interesting, that all the southern states like Texas that have looser gun laws, have a higher homicide rate, too? Probably just a coincidence.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:39   Link #1342
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
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.
No, that's neither comprehensive nor does it do anything other than create further stereotypes. What I want is a comprehensive look at the overall picture, not getting tunnel-visioned into one subsection of it.

Quote:
But correct if I'm wrong... it sounds like you are looking for other things to blame, rather than guns.
Consider yourself corrected You won't find me saying that guns don't kill people, or that the proliferation of guns won't result additional casualties. What you and I differ in is the degree of blame that is laid on the existence of firearm itself, the underlying cause of the issue, and the best way to go about fixing them.

Quote:
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.
I tend to give little weight to those "mass killings" when considering gun policy, as while they may carry a big shock value, I don't consider the loss of live in those incidents any more or less important than others.

I think a good addition to what you're saying about man's nature is that man will always find a way to adapt. Do you think gangs will stop their killings if you banned handguns? your ban may very well reduce deaths in some areas, but what's the point if it's made up in other areas with increased stabbing, rapes, robberies or other violent crimes?

Quote:
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.
A reformed and fair tax system in the US is about as big of a pipe dream as getting rid of guns IMO


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
And the body armor pretty much ensured that no one with a gun could have taken them down.
Um, no. Take this from someone who wears a lot more body armor on the job than any mass shooters ever had, no They offer protection to a degree, but hardly invulnerability.

Quote:
And if they didn't have access to guns, there is no way they could have taken down as many people.
Not in their target area of choice, no, but if they didn't have access to guns, they would've chosen other avenues that will be much more susceptible to their method of choice.

Quote:
Homicide rate for various countries (per 100k people):
United States: 4.8
Canada: 1.6
United Kingdom: 1.2
Australia: 1.0
Japan: 0.4

Huh. Countries with heavy gun regulation in effect, have a lower homicide rate, too. And if we don't want to look at other countries, we have the chart comparing states. Isn't it interesting, that all the southern states like Texas that have looser gun laws, have a higher homicide rate, too? Probably just a coincidence.
There you go again with your correlation = causation fallacy. If you want to make a comparison using only the homicide rate and and gun ownership, then you'd better make sure that there are no other factors that can influence the number. Basically, you managed to respond to Ithekro's question without actually responding to it. What you needed was the trend in homicide ratio (and other violent crimes) in UK and Australia pre and post their gun bans, and even then you'll still be operating under the problem where you're assuming no other factors are in play.

Last edited by kyp275; 2013-01-20 at 21:53.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:47   Link #1343
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Or they might just have been another casualty or caused collateral damage. I believe in guns for home defense, but amateur heroics is often best left to trained law enforcement officers.
Law enforcement isn't exactly trained unless they take it upon themselves to maintain their skill level.
Just look at the Empire State building shooting where the police injured more people than the shooter did.

Also, CCW permit holders do go through a basic firearms training, though I have pushed for mandatory training and enrollment in the Civilian Marksmanship Program, yet even my Democrat senators won't listen.
They just want to ban guns, which is a simpleton's approach to this issue.

Quote:
Depends on the measures and proportionality. For example I think cool-off periods before purchase 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.
"Cool-off" periods have been tried before in the US, and don't work. A more intrusive background check system with full mental health records would actually be more effective IMHO.
Currently the FBI check doesn't have that, and it should.
Mandatory training is a must, so we agree there.
Most gun owners do store their weapons in a safe, so that isn't an issue per se. Plus enforcing such a law would be next to impossible. It didn't work in DC or Chicago, I highly doubt it would work in rural America at all or even other cities which view the 2nd amendment as an unalienable right.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 21:58   Link #1344
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
No, that's neither comprehensive nor does it do anything other than create further stereotypes. What I want is a comprehensive look at the overall picture, not getting tunnel-visioned into one subsection of it.
So, that's the only thing it will take with you? You need a comprehensive study, that should have absolutely zero flaws in it, in order to finally make any kind of judgment with respect to the situation? I hate to disappoint, but science doesn't work that way. Science is incremental. We take baby steps, measuring one thing, getting that down, moving on to something else, slowly building a picture, piece by piece.

Quote:
Consider yourself corrected You won't find me saying that guns don't kill people, or that the proliferation of guns won't result additional casualties. What you and I differ in is the degree of blame that is laid on the existence of firearm itself, the underlying cause of the issue, and the best way to go about fixing them.
And you won't find me saying that the person holding the gun is absent any blame. Only that a person with a gun, can kill more people than without. After all, if we are going to allow arms, then let's allow the average citizen to own a nuke. Why don't we? Because with a nuke, 1 person can commit mass-murder on a huge scale. And we'd rather limit the damage one person can do.

There is an old joke, about Churchill talking with a woman:
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for 1 million pounds?"
Woman: "Oh my goodness, well, we might just have to talk about that."
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?"
Woman: "What kind of woman do you think I am!?"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

With respect to guns/arms/nukes/etc, we've already established things. Now we're just haggling over the price.

Quote:
I tend to give little weight to those "mass killings" when considering gun policy, as while they may carry a big shock value, I don't consider the loss of live in those incidents any more or less important than others.
Neither do I. In fact, I find the 15,000~30,000 dead from guns each year to be more repugnant than the mass killings, but the latter is what people focus on. And a gun simply makes killing easier. But if there were a way to at least stop the mass killings, I'd go for that. After all, many other countries no longer have them, or have them very, very rarely.

Quote:
I think a good addition to what you're saying about man's nature is that man will always find a way to adapt. Do you think gangs will stop their killings if you banned handguns? your ban may very well reduce deaths in some areas, but what's the point if it's made up in other areas with increased stabbing, rapes, robberies or other violent crimes?
You presume that if homicides by gun go down, other crime goes up. I'm sure you can probably find some statistic in one area that supports that notion, but there are other areas that would contradict it. I might also ask: "Keeping guns may very well protect people from killers and cause the crime rate to go down, but what's the point if the death rate is made up for when Godzilla attacks?"

In short, we can't know the future. That is why we experiment. I would have called Prohibition a good idea, and at least something to try. Having tried it, and seeing the effect, I would now say it isn't a good idea.

Quote:
Um, no. Take this from someone who wears a lot more body armor on the job than any mass shooters ever had, no They offer protection to a degree, but hardly invulnerability.
Oh, I'm well aware it wasn't perfect. But it is one among many factors (and you like a lot of factors, right?) to consider. There is also the confusion of the moment. In the Aurora theater, it was dark, and once things started happening, there was smoke. I believe there was even people with guns there, but they couldn't figure out what to aim at.

Now, if we want to play the presumption game, what if someone is there with a gun, and decided to start shooting anyway, and hit innocent bystanders? Therefore, a good person with a gun can increase casualties as much as decrease them.

My thought: Let's experiment.

Quote:
Not in their target area of choice, no, but if they didn't have access to guns, they would've chosen other avenues that will be much more susceptible to their method of choice.
Presumption. Maybe they would have just given up, when they realized they couldn't cause as much harm as they wanted. We might never know... unless we ban guns and find out.

Quote:
There you go again with your correlation = causation fallacy. If you want to make a comparison using only the homicide rate and and gun ownership, then you'd better make sure that there are no other factors that can influence the number. Basically, you managed to respond to Ithekro's question without actually responding to it. What you needed was the trend in homicide ratio (and other violent crimes) in UK and Australia pre and post their gun bans, and even then you'll still be operating under the problem where you're assuming no other factors are in play.
Well, I did point out that Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since their gun laws. You're right to a degree about the correlation = causation fallacy, but you also refuse to look at the difference in gun laws as a factor. If I am reading too much into it, you aren't reading enough. But if we want to start tackling some numbers, and if you didn't like my other sources, maybe you'd prefer snope's take on Australia's gun ban?

Another article analyzing the Aussie situation.

Last edited by Kaijo; 2013-01-20 at 22:09.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:12   Link #1345
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
There you go again with your correlation = causation fallacy. If you want to make a comparison using only the homicide rate and and gun ownership, then you'd better make sure that there are no other factors that can influence the number. Basically, you managed to respond to Ithekro's question without actually responding to it. What you needed was the trend in homicide ratio (and other violent crimes) in UK and Australia pre and post their gun bans, and even then you'll still be operating under the problem where you're assuming no other factors are in play.
Many on the gun control side do this which is why it becomes an excercise in futility.
They aren't dealing in facts as a whole, they are simply making gross assumptions without looking at all of the factors involved.

SOURCE: (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics 2011):

Take the murders per 100,000 by state.
Louisiana has very light gun control laws and has the highest murder rate at 11.4 per 100,000.
Yet Puerto Rico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US (since they are a territory) and they have a rate of 30.6 per 100,000.

On the low end of the scale we have Vermont with very lax gun control laws (they even have open carry without a permit) at 1.3 per 100,000.
Yet when contrasted with Hawaii, which has very strict gun control laws, we see that Hawaii has a murder rate of only 1.2 per 100,000.

What does that show us?
It shows us that murder per 100,000 has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with standard of living, education, and population density.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:13   Link #1346
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
So, that's the only thing it will take with you? You need a comprehensive study, that should have absolutely zero flaws in it, in order to finally make any kind of judgment with respect to the situation?
No, don't misconstrue my word, I said comprehensive, not perfect. There's a big difference.

Quote:
I hate to disappoint, but science doesn't work that way. Science is incremental. We take baby steps, measuring one thing, getting that down, moving on to something else, slowly building a picture, piece by piece.
There's taking baby steps, and then there's looking at only two factors out of dozens. How would you feel about a Global Warming study that only takes into account the temperature records of two locations?

Quote:
You presume that if homicides by gun go down, other crime goes up. I'm sure you can probably find some statistic in one area that supports that notion, but there are other areas that would contradict it. I might also ask: "Keeping guns may very well protect people from killers and cause the crime rate to go down, but what's the point if the death rate is made up for when Godzilla attacks?"
Technically, you're also presuming that less private ownership of guns will lead to less deaths overall. That aside, I'm pretty sure gundamfan linked something earlier about how the UK's violent crime rate shot up after their ban, so there's that.

As for the Godzilla part, that's just you engaging in hyperbole

Quote:
In short, we can't know the future. That is why we experiment. I would have called Prohibition a good idea, and at least something to try. Having tried it, and seeing the effect, I would now say it isn't a good idea.
Experiments are great in a lab, you can keep doing them over and over again until you figure out what works and what doesn't. Politics, laws, and constitution on the other hand is different. Not that I have anything particular against your sentiment, I just don't think it's a very realistic expectation. Few rights are ever returned after they've been taken away, and none easily, just look at the Patriot Act, the DMCA etc. Why do you think people was up in arms about SOPA? why wouldn't they accept SOPA as a temporary experiment to see if it'll only reduce illegal copyright violations?

Quote:
Now, if we want to play the presumption game, what if someone is there with a gun, and decided to start shooting anyway, and hit innocent bystanders? Therefore, a good person with a gun can increase casualties as much as decrease them.
Then the person who did that would be charged with the appropriate crime. Us CCW holders are very much aware that we're responsible for what we shoot at, and what's beyond what we're shooting at. Someone that would blindly fire into a crowd would be completely irresponsible, and deserves every last bit of the punishment.

That said, I personally have never met any CCW holders that thinks as recklessly as the one in your scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Well, I did point out that Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since their gun laws. You're right to a degree about the correlation = causation fallacy, but you also refuse to look at the difference in gun laws as a factor. If I am reading too much into it, you aren't reading enough.
Again, just because I don't place as much weight only on those two statistics and consider them as the primary factor, doesn't mean I'm refusing to look at them. I obviously think you're placing too much on them, while you think I place too little, I've explained why I think the way I do, I'm not sure I've heard your reason for why you think the way you do.

as for those articles, the nieman article makes the same mistakes you do - nothing but gun ownership and gun deaths, have a small section at the end on the different social aspect between Australia and US, but makes no effort to integrate those information or to try to contextualize anything. The snopes article is great at showing how statistics can be skewed - but otherwise makes no meaningful comparisons of its own, as it was not the point of the article. The end of it though, is worth repeating here:

Quote:
The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

Last edited by kyp275; 2013-01-20 at 22:32.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:28   Link #1347
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 GundamFan0083 View Post
Many on the gun control side do this which is why it becomes an excercise in futility.
They aren't dealing in facts as a whole, they are simply making gross assumptions without looking at all of the factors involved.

SOURCE: (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics 2011):

Take the murders per 100,000 by state.
Louisiana has very light gun control laws and has the highest murder rate at 11.4 per 100,000.
Yet Puerto Rico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US (since they are a territory) and they have a rate of 30.6 per 100,000.

On the low end of the scale we have Vermont with very lax gun control laws (they even have open carry without a permit) at 1.3 per 100,000.
Yet when contrasted with Hawaii, which has very strict gun control laws, we see that Hawaii has a murder rate of only 1.2 per 100,000.

What does that show us?
It shows us that murder per 100,000 has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with standard of living, education, and population density.
No one is saying they have nothing to do with it. And indeed, everything you stated is a factor. But you're problem is that you are trying to take guns completely out of it as a factor. If you want us to accept things like education and population density as a factor, you have to be willing to accept that guns themselves are a factor as well.

Also, Puerto Rico isn't a state, but a territory. You are the one who wants to exclude every country because you can't compare it to the US. Puerto Rico essentially is another country. We defend it militarily from outside aggressors, but very little else. So, we are limited to looking at the comparisons between the 50 states, and nothing else. So yes, Lousiana has the lightest gun laws and highest homicide rate.

Don't tell me that you firmly believe that the gun laws have absolutely zero to do with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
No, don't misconstrue my word, I said comprehensive, not perfect. There's a big difference.
Except that, judging by your past evaluations, you always find flaws in everything, and thus use that as a reason to reject using those numbers. Your comprehensive study is going to have flaws, and if it supports your position, what will you say when someone goes, "Oh, but there are flaws, so we can't use it for anything, or put much weight in it." ?

Quote:
There's taking baby steps, and then there's looking at only two factors out of dozens. How would you feel about a Global Warming study that only takes into account the temperature records of two locations?
Global Warming studies have taken years to get to this point. And it's also interesting because Global warming relies on a multitude of factor stretching over the entire planet... it's a lot of data. Do you believe the scientists when they say the planet is warming, and that it is because of humans? Or do you say that there is too much data to accurately compare, and thus we can't do and shouldn't give it much weight?

Quote:
Technically, you're also presuming that less private ownership of guns will lead to less deaths overall. That aside, I'm pretty sure gundamfan linked something earlier about how the UK's violent crime rate shot up after their ban, so there's that.
Indeed, which is why we need many years to judge the effect. It will take time to get all the guns out of the system, and we will always have some measure of gun crime. But it will eventually shrink to a very small level. The Uk's 0.04 homicide by fire-arm rate, for example, which is one of the lowest in the world.

The part about Godzilla, is that you can't make a decision today, based on what *might* happen tomorrow. You could walk out of your house tomorrow and be hit with a meteorite, or another car. Does that mean you stay in your house?

Quote:
Experiments are great in a lab, you can keep doing them over and over again until you figure out what works and what doesn't. Politics, laws, and constitution on the other hand is different. Not that I have anything particular against your sentiment, I just don't think it's a very realistic expectation.
How are you going to know how a policy works, until you actually implement and judge the effects? We didn't know that prohibition was going to lead to an increase in violent crime and give power to a rising mob. Sometimes, you just have to try something different. A lot of people in the US are dying due to guns. Sure, a small fraction of the populace feels protected because they have a gun... bu the vast majority of Americans are paying the price for it. If I had something that was causing my neighbor harm, I'd be willing to consider getting rid of it. Then again, that's just me.

Quote:
That said, I personally have never met any CCW holders that thinks as recklessly as the one in your scenario.
When you consider that some like GundamFan want to push guns into the hands of teachers, or fire them instead, that scenario becomes a whole lot more probable.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:41   Link #1348
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Guns are not a precise weapon. Let's not forget that trained soldiers have trouble keeping down "collateral damage", and they have years of training and experience. Put a CCW holder in a large crowd with a single gunman, and they might not do better. They might even panic and "spray and pray".


Also, for what it's worth, there is no western industrialized country in the world with a higher homicide rate then the USA.

Having spent substantial amounts of time on both sides of the Atlantic, the only difference I can perceive between the US and Europe (besides the US having nicer restaurant service) is the gun laws. Otherwise, Europe has just as much crazy people, minorities, gangs, drug use, video games, poverty...

I mean people underestimate how similar America and Europe are. I mean many of the sins people put at the feet of America, are similarly bad in Europe. (For instance, Europe has almost as much wealth inequality as the USA, we have just as many mega corporations...)

So why does Europe have such low homicide rates, if not for the lack of guns? If you were to remove America's gun homicides from it's homicide total, it would be almost the same most European states.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:42   Link #1349
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
Just an FYI, but if you don't want someone to talk to you, you can go to their profile page and click the "ignore this user" option.

Also, it's worth noting in all this, since we are an anime forum, is Japan's gun situation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ro-gun-deaths/ kinda sums things up nicely. I'll copy and paste this one quote from the bottom that sums things up:

"That U.S. firearm law developed to protect gun rights first and public safety second, whereas Japan privileged public safety, is both telling and reflects feelings and priorities that go much deeper than just this one issue. That’s not something that can be reversed with a single bill or news conference, not that I’m arguing it should be. The individual liberty vs. public safety trade-off is not an easy one to make, and though Japan’s policy does appear to save thousands of lives when compared to America’s, it comes at real costs."

Public Safety vs. Individual Liberty. I kinda agree with him that it is not an easy decision to make, and is a decision we have to make in more areas than just guns. But at this point, with regards to guns, I am leaning toward Public Safety. In other matters, I may lean toward Individual Liberty. It's a personal decision.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:43   Link #1350
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Except that, judging by your past evaluations, you always find flaws in everything, and thus use that as a reason to reject using those numbers. Your comprehensive study is going to have flaws, and if it supports your position, what will you say when someone goes, "Oh, but there are flaws, so we can't use it for anything, or put much weight in it." ?
Again with your hyperbole and twisting of words. Show me where I rejected a comprehensive study. I'll be waiting.

And FYI, if that was the case, then I'll take a look at the alleged flaws and apply the same standard to which I've always do.

Quote:
Global Warming studies have taken years to get to this point. And it's also interesting because Global warming relies on a multitude of factor stretching over the entire planet... it's a lot of data.
Indeed, it's a lot of data, and there have been tons of very comprehensive studies on them, I doubt you'll find a global warming studies that only takes into account two factors.

Quote:
Do you believe the scientists when they say the planet is warming, and that it is because of humans? Or do you say that there is too much data to accurately compare, and thus we can't do and shouldn't give it much weight?
Sure, I'll bite, I do believe the planet is warming, and I'm pretty sure humans most likely have something to do with it, now whether there's anything we can realistically do about it... that's another question entirely, and outside the scope of this thread.

Quote:
How are you going to know how a policy works, until you actually implement and judge the effects? We didn't know that prohibition was going to lead to an increase in violent crime and give power to a rising mob. Sometimes, you just have to try something different. A lot of people in the US are dying due to guns. Sure, a small fraction of the populace feels protected because they have a gun... bu the vast majority of Americans are paying the price for it. If I had something that was causing my neighbor harm, I'd be willing to consider getting rid of it. Then again, that's just me.
again, an idealistic view, not one I agree with, but I can at least applaud the sentiment, but politically and legally completely unrealistic, it's simply not how the world works.

Also, I'd contest your view about "small fraction of the populace", if gun owners really ARE a small fraction of the populace, gun control legislature would've rolled through congress a long time ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Public Safety vs. Individual Liberty. I kinda agree with him that it is not an easy decision to make, and is a decision we have to make in more areas than just guns. But at this point, with regards to guns, I am leaning toward Public Safety. In other matters, I may lean toward Individual Liberty. It's a personal decision.
Japan is also an extremely homogenous, both ethnically and culturally, which is also (forced to be) extremely pacifistic after WW2. Compared to the US, one is very individualistic, the other has extreme social pressure and conditioning to conform, the two is really nothing alike.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:45   Link #1351
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
I would find sonic and blinding weapons to be even less precise. Nerve gas extremely imprecise (one of the key reasons for Chemical weapons to be banned following the First World War was because the various gases had the unfortunate habit of being subject to the weather and harming friendly troops as much or more than the enemy troops).
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:46   Link #1352
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Guns are not a precise weapon. Let's not forget that trained soldiers have trouble keeping down "collateral damage", and they have years of training and experience. Put a CCW holder in a large crowd with a single gunman, and they might not do better. They might even panic and "spray and pray".


Also, for what it's worth, there is no western industrialized country in the world with a higher homicide rate then the USA.

Having spent substantial amounts of time on both sides of the Atlantic, the only difference I can perceive between the US and Europe (besides the US having nicer restaurant service) is the gun laws. Otherwise, Europe has just as much crazy people, minorities, gangs, drug use, video games, poverty...

I mean people underestimate how similar America and Europe are. I mean many of the sins people put at the feet of America, are similarly bad in Europe. (For instance, Europe has almost as much wealth inequality as the USA, we have just as many mega corporations...)
DQ, if you want an honest comparison you have to view US as being equal to Europe as a whole, meaing the US is more like the EU because it is a union of 50 states/nations, each with its own government and laws.
So a more realistic comparison is as follows:

If we compare the US murder rate to Europe as a whole, we find something rather interesting (EU crime statistics 2010).

Land Mass:
Europe- 10,180,000 Sq/KM
US- 9,826,675 Sq/KM

Population:
Europe- 836,398,000
US- 309,496,000

Murder Rate:
Europe- 4.83 per 100,000
US- 4.58 per 100,000

Gun Ownership:
Europe- 12,000 per 100,000
US- 90,000 per 100,000

Europe's murder rate of 4.83 per 100,000 is higher than that of the United States' 4.58 per 100,000, but has only 14% the civilian gun ownership of the U.S.
Conversely, the U.S. has 7.33 times the civilian gun ownership of Europe, but a lower murder rate.

That's an accurate comparison, not this UK verses US bullshit.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:53   Link #1353
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
I believe Americans have a phase that goes something like, "Those that trade freedom for security deserve niether". Phrases like that started coming up more often after the Patriot Act came about.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:55   Link #1354
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Guns are not a precise weapon. Let's not forget that trained soldiers have trouble keeping down "collateral damage", and they have years of training and experience. Put a CCW holder in a large crowd with a single gunman, and they might not do better. They might even panic and "spray and pray".
I'll have to dispute this, there aren't many weapon systems that are more precise than guns. In modern war, collateral damage are not caused by imprecise gunfire (indeed, if they didn't hit, they wouldn't have caused the damage).
The imprecise part that causes collateral damage is one of information - knowing what it is that you're shooting at, and what is around/beyond it.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 22:56   Link #1355
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
Again with your hyperbole and twisting of words. Show me where I rejected a comprehensive study. I'll be waiting.

And FYI, if that was the case, then I'll take a look at the alleged flaws and apply the same standard to which I've always do.
I say this, because any comprehensive study you get, is going to have as many flaws as you find with the numbers I pull from the FBI, scientific journals, and the UNODC. And despite the massive amount of data on Global warming, you still have people rejecting it, and still have some small fraction.

Quote:
again, an idealistic view, not one I agree with, but I can at least applaud the sentiment, but politically and legally completely unrealistic, it's simply not how the world works.
It works in Japan.

Quote:
Also, I'd contest your view about "small fraction of the populace", if gun owners really ARE a small fraction of the populace, gun control legislature would've rolled through congress a long time ago.
The numbers vary by quite a bit, but range anywhere from 30% to 45% of households in the US have at least one gun. The population of the US is roughly 300 million, and the NRA has just over 4 million members. You want to know why gun control legislation hasn't rolled through Congress? The NRA, funded by gun manufacturers, who have promised to defeat any congress person who doesn't toe their line, and they have cash to back that up. On the flip side, gun control advocacy groups don't have near as much funding or organization, and thus not as much lobby power.

And I'll toss this bit out: The number of households with a gun is decreasing in the US, but the number of households with a gun who remain, are increasing the number of firearms they have. So guns are becoming more concentrated. Also, according to some statistics, roughly have the guns in the world, are concentrated within the US.

Here are some other statistics,
for those interested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I would find sonic and blinding weapons to be even less precise.
Imprecise, yes, but considerably less lethal.

Quote:
I believe Americans have a phase that goes something like, "Those that trade freedom for security deserve niether". Phrases like that started coming up more often after the Patriot Act came about.
The actual quote is: "Those that would trade essential liberties, for a little temporary security, deserve neither." It was Thomas Jefferson, and people rarely actually look into the circumstances of that quote. But suffice it to say, the Japanese have traded some small amount of liberty (being allowed to carry a gun, and any gun owner automatically allowing searches of their home), for a considerable amount of security. They have their share of criminals and crime as well, but very little in the way of homicide or deaths via guns. So, in this case, it does work. And we can argue whether being allowed to carry a gun is an essential liberty. Considering that many other countries that have heavily restricted this "liberty" and are no better or worse off with regards to a level of tyranny, I think it is safe to safe this particular liberty isn't so essential.

Oh, and to clear up inaccurate numbers: The homicide rate in Europe ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 per 100k. The United States is 4.8.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 23:06   Link #1356
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
DQ, if you want an honest comparison you have to view US as being equal to Europe as a whole, meaing the US is more like the EU because it is a union of 50 states/nations, each with its own government and laws.
So a more realistic comparison is as follows:

If we compare the US murder rate to Europe as a whole, we find something rather interesting (EU crime statistics 2010).

Land Mass:
Europe- 10,180,000 Sq/KM
US- 9,826,675 Sq/KM

Population:
Europe- 836,398,000
US- 309,496,000

Murder Rate:
Europe- 4.83 per 100,000
US- 4.58 per 100,000

Gun Ownership:
Europe- 12,000 per 100,000
US- 90,000 per 100,000

Europe's murder rate of 4.83 per 100,000 is higher than that of the United States' 4.58 per 100,000, but has only 14% the civilian gun ownership of the U.S.
Conversely, the U.S. has 7.33 times the civilian gun ownership of Europe, but a lower murder rate.

That's an accurate comparison, not this UK verses US bullshit.
It's not really fair to include Russia with the rest of Europe. That's like including Mexico with the US. If you consult this table courtesy of Eurostat, the only EU states with a homicide rate above 2/100,000 are Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland ( ), Lithuania, Romania and Finland.

For one thing, in Russia the guns laws are lot more lax then in the rest of Europe (and corruption is rampant). So including Russia, and the other post Soviet Union states of Ukraine and Belarus really skews things, as the Post USSR states are quite different in terms of economic circumstances, civil liberties and laws compared to the rest of Europe.

The USA and Mexico together would be ~9.6 homicides/100,000. I'd give you a combined Homicide rate for the EU, but I couldn't find anything besides individual countries. However "Northern Europe" has a homicide rate of 1.5, Western Europe 1.0 and Southern Europe 1.4. Eastern Europe (where, might I add, gun laws tend to be much looser) is 6.4
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 23:06   Link #1357
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
I say this, because any comprehensive study you get, is going to have as many flaws as you find with the numbers I pull from the FBI, scientific journals, and the UNODC.
I'll take a comprehensive study that have flaws, over study that are flawed yet also not comprehensive.

Quote:
It works in Japan.
and I've pointed out above some rather striking differences between Japan and US.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind making the US into a racially and ethnically homogenous country with a xenophobic society that discourages and look down on individuality that also happens to be a police state.

I do.

Quote:
he numbers vary by quite a bit, but range anywhere from 30% to 45% of households in the US have at least one gun.
Since when did 30-45% became "a small fraction"?

Quote:
On the flip side, gun control advocacy groups don't have near as much funding or organization, and thus not as much lobby power.
who's fault is that?

Quote:
The number of households with a gun is decreasing in the US, but the number of households with a gun who remain, are increasing the number of firearms they have.
The number of households that are getting rid of guns tends to be Democrats, while it has remained pretty much static elsewhere:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...vide-is-sharp/

So I'd say it's more of a reflection that the left is becoming MORE anti-gun
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 23:14   Link #1358
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
I'll have to dispute this, there aren't many weapon systems that are more precise than guns. In modern war, collateral damage are not caused by imprecise gunfire (indeed, if they didn't hit, they wouldn't have caused the damage).
The imprecise part that causes collateral damage is one of information - knowing what it is that you're shooting at, and what is around/beyond it.
The gun itself is accurate. It's the operator who would be inaccurate.

Furthermore, the weapon most CCW holders would carry (a handgun) is not a very accurate weapon, and more difficult to aim then a rifle. So Soldiers, using rifles and trained to aim, should have much better accuracy in combat then a civilian with mostly informal training and a handgun, and yet in the panic of battle soldiers (particularly rookies) will often miss and even hit civilians. I doubt a your neighborhood friendly gun enthusiast will do better. And he's much more likely to panic and underperform as it will most likely be the first combat situation he's ever experienced. I believe soldiers in their first combat situation do not usually perform well, even with all their training. Usually they need to be embedded among more experienced veterans to keep them cool. Though, that's just my perception, obviously I lack first hand knowledge (not being a soldier).
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 23:15   Link #1359
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
I'll take a comprehensive study that have flaws, over study that are flawed yet also not comprehensive.
Why? Both are flawed. Look, the numbers I ran before were just that: numbers. You're right that they didn't explain *why* the US has a higher homicide and suicide rate than other countries, just what the current numbers were. Without bothering to get into the why, will you at least accept that the US's homicide and suicide rate is higher? Both with guns and without?

Quote:
and I've pointed out above some rather striking differences between Japan and US.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind making the US into a racially and ethnically homogenous country with a xenophobic society that discourages and look down on individuality that also happens to be a police state.
Who said we need to import xenophobia? Although, this is the US.... we were pretty xenophobic to the Irish, to the Japanese, to the Chinese, to the Russians, and in the current day and age, we're pretty xenophobic to Mexicans and Muslims and Arabs. Man, all the xenophobia, and none of the benefits! Hey, wait... doesn't that mean that xenophobia isn't a requirement for public safety?

And I'd hardly call Japan a police state.

Quote:
Since when did 30-45% became "a small fraction"?
A small fraction of the population. 30-45% is the number of households that report having a gun in the house... that means the gun could belong to the father, and not the mother or their two children. So, if you take an average of 1 our of 4 people being the gun owner in the house, that's roughly 8-11% of Americans who own guns. A small fraction.

Quote:
who's fault is that?
Wasn't saying it was anyone's fault. Just pointing out why we have lax gun laws here.

Quote:
The number of households that are getting rid of guns tends to be Democrats, while it has remained pretty much static elsewhere:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...vide-is-sharp/

So I'd say it's more of a reflection that the left is becoming MORE anti-gun
Possibly. Or possibly they find they don't need them. One other thing to keep in mind, then, since the country as a whole is turning more democratic and the stereotype of the white male republican is shrinking, is that soon, there will be enough people who will have no problems banning some guns. And that's regardless of what you or I think.
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-20, 23:16   Link #1360
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
It's not really fair to include Russia with the rest of Europe. That's like including Mexico with the US. If you consult this table courtesy of Eurostat, the only EU states with a homicide rate above 2/100,000 are Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland ( ), Lithuania, Romania and Finland.

For one thing, in Russia the guns laws are lot more lax then in the rest of Europe (and corruption is rampant). So including Russia, and the other post Soviet Union states of Ukraine and Belarus really skews things, as the Post USSR states are quite different in terms of economic circumstances, civil liberties and laws compared to the rest of Europe.
Then let's just compare Russia with the US, since both have similar problems with corruption, drugs, and gangs.

Russia has a population of 141,000,000 with a total number of gun owners at 12,000,000 (approx) yet they have 5 times the violent crime and slightly more murders than we do at 13,100 homicides (source Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs report 2010).

We do compare well with Russia in both land mass, and population density, as well as borders with nations that harbor organized crime (be it Drug Cartels or Terrorists isn't really an issue, as you said earlier, they are similar).
__________________
GundamFan0083 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 05:36.


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