2012-08-30, 13:16 | Link #281 | ||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
If registration was properly enforced, I think you'd go a long way to keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. @Emeiz_hyde: Absolutely agree. |
||
2012-08-30, 14:04 | Link #282 | |||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Again, you're not considering the broad implications and their practicality.
Neither are always be practical or even possible. You may not have places nearby to run TO, or you may not be able to run as fast or as long as the attacker, or you may not be capable of running AT ALL. Similarly with "knocking them out", you think a typical 90-110 lbs. women can just "knock out" a 200 lbs. male (or two) with ease? or any elderly person? Not to mention blunt force trauma straight to the head is also very much capable of killing a person. Not only simplified, but also missing just about every single factors that involves a real-life firefight. Your model may work with in a video game, but it bears no semblance to reality. If you really want to know why, I'd be more than glad to go in-depth with you, but I'd prefer not to make these posts longer than they already are. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CriVUV5lh_M one 65-yr old women vs. 5 armed robbers, guess who ran away? You still can't get out of the rut you're stuck in, where you think in over-simplified terms and making assumptions on things you're not familiar with, and drawing your conclusion based on those flawed premises. Quote:
too bad reality disagrees with you. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...1/crime_091911 According to the FBI, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults" So 32.5% of the murderers, 58.6% of the robbers, and 79.4% of those who assaulted another did not get your memo that they should've been using a gun Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have no issue with gun registration, provided that there is no undue cost levied during said registration, but psychiatric check? I have one word for you: GTFO. Quote:
Your argument basically boils down to "the system is imperfect, therefore we should make sweeping and overreaching changes to it!" Guess we'd best abolish our court system too, after all, innocent people have been, and will continue to be convicted of crimes they did not commit |
|||||||||
2012-08-30, 15:44 | Link #284 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
GundamFan0083's point on us not needing more gun laws is exactly because we already have plenty. The problem is not the number of laws or getting new laws. The problem in enforcement of the existing laws.
We got lots and lots of firearm and other weapons regulations out there, just not all of them are enforced. That is where the problem is. Politicians make points and look like they are working by making new laws. They don't look like they are going anything when a laws that has been on the books for decades is working. Then they have less crap to push around the committees and less reason for people to want to vote for them. Law enforcement can only do so much as it is. Without either funding, or direction being given from above, they can't really enforce all the laws we have. Especially if we have thrice dedundancy and perhaps confliction within the law books of laws that were sometimes never removed from the books, even if others laws mostly superceed them. There are a lot of federal, state, and more local gun laws, restrictions, and other forms of control out there. Just most of them are not enforced.
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 16:34 | Link #285 | |||||||||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I won't believe you if you don't explain why. Why should I? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And rather then saying that what I'm saying is oversimplified and flawed, why don't you take a moment and tell me why? Do you expect me to just believe you without any logical argument to back it up? I take the time to try to explain why I believe I am correct, I would hope that you would return the favour, how else am I to learn why I am incorrect? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How else would you stop guns getting into the hands of criminals? Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
2012-08-30, 18:15 | Link #286 | |||||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
This has been gone over too many times in this thread already, there is simply no meaningful/practical data out there to objectively compare the benefits and downsides of private gun ownership, unless you can produce one, I suggest you drop this. Also, I love how you went off on a red-herring instead of addressing my specific response to your faulty premises Quote:
Quote:
"The person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses"? What kind of joke is this? You're not AWP'ing it up in Counterstrike ok? Get that Hollywood image of a guy getting tossed in the air and dies whenever a bullet hits him in any part of his body out of your head. Hitting a guy in his "T-box" is the only physiological sure way of immediately stopping an enemy from shooting back, no ifs or buts. And no, nobody goes for the fking Tbox in a firefight, 'cause it's not practical to try to aim for that tiny area in one. Seriously, leave the tactical talk to the experts and those who knows what they're talking about before you make yourself look even worse. Quote:
Suffice to say that your impossibly broad and sweeping generalization of a statement that "those who shoot first are always at an advantage" is about as meaningful and accurate as "I won a match of blackjack by asking for two additional cards, therefore I will always win a match of blackjack by asking for two cards". Quote:
Quote:
When people pass out after they get hit in the head is due to cerebral concussion - brain slamming into the skull. However, not all cases of concussion leads to unconsciousness, despite what you may see on TV. I've seen guys who suffered multiple concussions from IEDs but never passed out. I've personally had a concussion, and did not pass out, though it would've been nice if I did. You see it happen to athletes all the time too: a catcher in baseball who gets hit by a foul-tip in the face, football or soccer players from collisions. Many suffers concussions, yet never lost consciousness. Quote:
Quote:
When you want to discuss specific tactical scenarios such as who and what would be an advantage, you need to take into account the specific location and its surrounding environments, the nature of the confrontation, the equipment available to both sides, the number and skill of people that are involved, the mental state of those that are involved, and the goal that each want to accomplish. Each is unique in every case, and all factors would have to be considered. Now if your idea is two guys standing in front of each other wild-wild-west style duking it out, then yea, you probably would prefer to be the guy who shoots first, even though in all practicality it means little if you can't put down accurate fire. Quote:
Well, clearly other countries are not suffering from waves of crime epidemics because we lack the means to defend ourselves. I think your gun might make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer? christ, I just listed out all those factors which all directly influences violent crime rates, and it just went straight over your head, and you wonder why I've grown tired of trying to explain things to you? Again, why don't you explain to me in my ignorance? Quote:
You think that 12 dead at Aurora was bad? if Holmes had forgo his shooting rampage and instead used his car as a VBIED, we'd likely be looking at near triple digit dead at the minimum, if not more. And more than that, at some point you have to draw the line for what's acceptable for government and society to intrude into the private affairs of lawful citizens. You would subject every gun owner and prospective gun owner for mandatory psychiatric evaluations because a few dozen people died in a couple mass shooting incidents. Then why not mandatory breathalyzer at every bar and restaurant when patrons leave, and every car before it can be started? far more people are killed by drunk drivers every year. And while we're at it, why not a mandatory wakefulness test every hour to make sure drivers aren't sleepy? since a tired driver is just as dangerous as a drunk one. Also, mandatory cellphone jammer in every vehicle to prevent texting-and-driving. Same thing with smoking cigarettes, why not ban it considering how many people die from it every year? and the strain smokers put on the health care system which has to care for them? Heck, if you want psych evals so bad, I'd say priests should get them first! to make sure they're not pedofiles! same thing with all teachers, after all, nothing is as important as our children, we must make sure that there are no molesters hidden in their midst! You see where this goes? Quote:
Easy, invent a time machine, go back in time and kill everyone that would invent gunpowder |
|||||||||||
2012-08-30, 18:41 | Link #287 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
As for person to person sales, that depends on state laws. Mostly it's sold and goes home with its new owner. Thing is the previous owner IS STILL RESPONSIBLE for the gun! So if it used in a crime, that person will be held accountable, unless he can produce some sort of bill of sale. Also some states do have a waiting period before you may pick up the gun you purchased. It too varies from state to state. You can do like I did since this thread started and either call your local ATF office, or go online at ATF.gov for questions. |
|
2012-08-30, 18:57 | Link #288 |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
@kyp: Pardon me, but can I ask you what is it about psychiatric evaluation that makes you hate it so much? Wouldn't it help screen people who shows tendencies to make blunders with firearms? (such as crimes or accidental shootings)
Please don't resort to snarky comments and just answer it in a gentlemanly way.
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 19:35 | Link #289 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
1. What type of evaluation are you talking about? and how often? If it's the questionnaire type that you may see with some job applications, then it would be practically useless. If you're talking about the type where you do a one-on-one with an actual psychiatrist, then you run into even more problems. 2. Cost - who is going to pay for those examinations? one-on-one sessions are not cheap to say the least. And if you make these the burden of prospective gun owners, then you would've essentially priced the poor and those who have limited disposable income out of being able to exercise their constitutional right. When was the last time you had to pay to have your freedom of speech? I've talked about this in more detail in the previous post, there are some lines a government should not cross, and massive mandatory psychiatric exams on a substantial portion of the general population without reason is one of them. Realistically speaking, no politician will ever seriously support such a measure, and the Supreme Court (or any lesser district court for that matter) will toss such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment out the door so fast you wouldn't have time to blink. 3. Logistics - Qualified psychiatrist are not a dime a dozen. Roughly 25 to 30% of the entire US population owns firearms, which means you'll have anywhere from around 90 million to 105 million people that would have to undergo said evaluation. Do you have any idea how long that's going to take? especially when you consider that there is already a worsening shortage of psychiatrists in the US to meet current mental health care needs, the strain an additional 100 million patients will force on top of that system would be unthinkable. Not only will such scenario likely force those psych evals to become little more than rubber-stamped formality, you'd also exponentially increase the likelihood that more James Holmes and Seung Cho will slip through the critically strained system. 4. Ineffective - Psych evals will not address the two issues you raised, such as crime and accident. Sure, you may weed out some of the mentally unstable, but most criminals are not crazy in the head (nor do many of the crazies starts out that way). As far as accidents go, that has far more to do with proper maintenance and following safety procedures, which has nothing to do with a psychiatric exam. Last edited by kyp275; 2012-08-30 at 19:48. |
|
2012-08-30, 19:55 | Link #290 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
If your record indicates you been detained for mental health reasons you will be barred from owning a firearm. But it must be there first in order for the authorities to stop the transaction. Last edited by Lost Cause; 2012-08-30 at 21:27. |
|
2012-08-30, 21:40 | Link #292 |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Well, stories like these are all nice and good, but for every good stories like these, exist the bad ones where people were being stupid.
It got me thinking. Will that good bystander not help had he not bring a gun with him? Like how one deranged people can do shit regardless whether he had guns or not, can't good people do good without them?
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 22:30 | Link #293 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-08-30, 22:51 | Link #294 |
Sharing my world thru art
Artist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 41
|
I believe in tighter gun control, but I'm against banning them. Why take away law abiding citizens their right to defend themselves? All that'll do is empower more criminals to commit more crimes. And anyone believing banning guns and tighter control thinking it'll lower gun related violence is fooling themselves. People who want to cause harm or even kill will still find ways to obtain guns.
Living in the midwest where a couple of months my state will allow an open carry policy. Some say that having a gun in plain sight put some at risk since the firearm will be the first thing they go after. However I believe that seeing a gun on your person will force thieves, would rapists, and petty thugs to think twice before committing that crime. Pretty much if you ban guns, other violent related crimes will rise and still firearms will find their way into criminals hands. Note: I'm not a gun owner, but when I have children, I will seriously think about getting one, because it's dangerous world we live in. And I have the right to protect my family.
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 23:16 | Link #295 |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
I agree with Jmac. The question then is, how tight should the law governs gun control, and how should the law deals with the mess an armed conflict left behind? I don't think being a victim gives one the right to kill, so that should be reflected somehow in the law.
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 23:33 | Link #296 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Being a "victim" doesn't automatically grant you the right to use deadly force, there are specific circumstances and conditions outlined in each state's law as to when the use of deadly force is justified. |
|
2012-08-30, 23:59 | Link #297 | |
Sharing my world thru art
Artist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 41
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 05:16 | Link #298 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Here's some data comparing violent crime (unfortunately there's none for overall crime) with firearms. The "result" tab divides the first column by the second and is misleading - we want to see if crimes increase with low gun ownership and decrease with high gun ownership. If you don't want to go through the list yourself, I'll copy some states for comparison. Selected states with low gun ownership (less than 3% of households have loaded firearms): New York - 414.10 (violent crimes per 100,000 people) Hawaii - 272.80 Ohio - 343.20 North Dakota - 142.40 Maine - 118.00 I've tried to choose states that are geographically diverse, but the gun ownership trends (particularly for those with low firearms) tend to cluster. Selected states with high gun ownership (greater than 10% of households have loaded firearms): Louisiana - 729.50 (violent crimes per 100,000 people) Alaska - 661.20 Montana - 287.50 Mississippi - 291.30 Arkansas - 529.40 Is there a trend? According to these figures, there is no trend based on gun ownership. Some states have high gun ownership and some of the highest violent crime on the list, but plenty of others have high gun ownership and crime that is less than some states with very low gun ownership. Based on this data, we can't make the claim that presence of firearms leads to more violent crime, and while one-off stories like GundamFan0083 posts are nice and make people feel good about the presence of guns, we can't say that firearms avert overall violent crime, either.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 06:24 | Link #299 | |
Sharing my world thru art
Artist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Anywhere I can draw inspiration from
Age: 41
|
Quote:
FYI: My state, Oklahoma, the crime rate is 499.60 good for 32nd and also has one of the higher percentage of households owning a gun.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 06:37 | Link #300 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
To put it more succinctly, criminals are not emboldened by a lack of guns, but they're also not cowed by their presence. ------------------ Because I'm going to have to stop coming to these forums pretty soon, and won't have the time to write long posts, here's a final thought. Look at the situations where GundamFan0083 and I were fired on. He was in a parking lot when someone who was miffed at him started firing shots; I committed the sin of "driving through a black neighborhood while white" and had my window shot out while stopped at a red light. I think GundamFan0083's situation would have been more frightening, but the point is this: even if either of us had a gun at those particular moments, would we have been able to avert anything? Perhaps GundamFan0083 could have returned fire (which would just increase the risk of collateral damage if he missed), but if his assailant was really in a fit of rage, it wouldn't have stopped the bullets from coming his way unless he killed the guy. In my case, getting out of my vehicle and making a show of a gun on a crowded New York City street... well, I think even those of you who have never been to New York City can guess how that might have played out. It wouldn't have made the shards of my window reassemble. This isn't to say that guns aren't useful. GundamFan0083 has posted many stories where guns were used to stop crime. I've also heard stories where guns were used in non-confrontational situations for good purposes. Guns are just tools, and like any tool they can be used with a positive purpose. I think that very few, even those who want to further curtail or control guns, would argue with this point. But how does that relate to our experiences of being fired on? In those situations we have to accept that no matter how well-armed we are, someone who decides to fire a bullet our way isn't going to be stopped. The gun can only ward off the intent; it can't do anything about the bullet that has already been fired. As I mentioned in one of my first posts on this thread, there are many ways of staving off the intent of firing a bullet that don't involve gun control. I am open, honest, and am not pushing any agenda other than saving lives and preventing injury, so of course I recognize this. However, even those who are against gun control cannot deny that if you reduce the number of guns, the chances of encountering someone with a gun decreases - and that includes people (whether criminals or not) who have ill intent. Having a gun grants you control over certain situations (such as GundamFan0083 being accosted by two men who were warded off by his handgun), but you're still powerless over others (again, the two instances where we were fired upon). During our discussion something has become clear to me. I tend to focus more on the "others," those situations where a gun is used offensively and without warning; the situations where having a gun on you doesn't offer any real protection. It seems that GundamFan0083 is focusing more on those situations where having a gun allows you to directly influence a situation by negating a firearm-bearing criminal or assailant. Both situations occur, and both are valid. My take is that reducing the number of guns would reduce both instances. (And again to reiterate, this doesn't have to do with numbers of crimes, but the use of firearms in crimes, which has the potential to reduce the magnitude of damage done). This is partly why I am also unimpressed by the posted stories. Many of them seem to indicate little more than that you needed a gun to stop someone else's gun, and that there's an awful lot of guns in use. If the assailant didn't have a gun, would you have needed yours? Obviously the gun advocates would say, "yes." Their reasons aren't pure fantasy or ill-reasoned, either. But do those reasons outweigh the deaths due to accidents and crime-related killings that might have been avoided if we had fewer guns? To me, that is where the practical debate lies, and there's no clear answer. Anyone who feels strongly about the issue on either side will likely downplay the reasons of the other side and conclude that the answer is perfectly clear, but I think it's important that we be intellectually honest about this: if the answer were that apparent or the other side's reasonings were very poor, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and the various countries and societies around the world would not have the variations in control laws that they do. I've thoroughly enjoyed the discourse, and thank everyone who took the time to write up their thoughts for doing so
__________________
|
|
|
|