Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#652 Feb 06 2013 at 4:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
This just in from Gbaji-land, armed gangs loitering around schools deter school shooters.


Seriously? Did you lick too much paint as a child or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#653 Feb 06 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation. In the case of fatality statistics when armed civilians intervene, we're well beyond that point IMO.
gbaji wrote:
Correlation is not causation. European nations happen to have stricter gun control laws. But there's no evidence that they enjoy lower violent crime rates because of those laws.


Yeah. There's a point where you have sufficient correlation that you can imply causation. Which is the case when we look at fatality rates when civilians intervene versus when they don't. This is *not* the case when looking at gun control laws and their effect on violent crime. I'll ask again: Where is the evidence that it's the strict gun control that is responsible for those lower crime rates?


Even your image bears this out. Notice that Mexico has lower gun ownership than several other nations with much lower gun death rates. There isn't even a correlation there. And if said chart bothered to include more nations, you'd see even less correlation. Clearly, there's something more than mere gun ownership at work here, right?

I will also point out for the umpteenth time that "gun deaths" is circular. We should be looking at all violent crimes, regardless of how they are committed. Looking only at gun crimes starts with the assumption that the objective is to reduce gun crime, and not "crime". As I pointed out earlier though, in nations where guns are harder to obtain, the ratio of murders committed with other weapons increases dramatically. This suggests that gun control doesn't prevent violent crime, but merely changes how they are committed.

Of course, that assessment requires that we apply logic and reason rather than emotion and rhetoric.


Edited, Feb 6th 2013 2:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#654 Feb 06 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, Germany is not New Zealand is not Norway is not Chile is not Canada is not Spain is not Australia is not Luxembourg is not Greece is not Great Britain is not Austria is not Ireland...

...yet all of these countries with all their geographic differences and cultural differences manage to ride the pretty obvious line between gun ownership and gun homicides. But somehow the United States is magically different and exempt and we should never, ever consider those correlations.

Making up speculative narratives of cowboy shoot-outs drawn from a couple pro-gun websites and calling that evidence is, of course, perfectly okay.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#655 Feb 06 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course, that assessment requires that we apply logic and reason rather than emotion and rhetoric.
Or in your assessment's case, none of the above.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#656 Feb 06 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Even your image bears this out. Notice that Mexico has lower gun ownership than several other nations with much lower gun death rates.

That's honestly the hook you're going to hang your case on?

Ok then. You might as well have just said "You're completely correct and I give up".

Quote:
We should be looking at all violent crimes, regardless of how they are committed.

We could look at all homicides per nation but I'll warn you now that you won't like that data any more.

Keep moving the goalposts perhaps?

Edited, Feb 6th 2013 4:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#657 Feb 06 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Yeah. There's a point where you have sufficient correlation that you can imply causation. Which is the case when we look at fatality rates when civilians intervene versus when they don't.

Interestingly, the fatality rate is far lower when the shooter and targets are outside. Dramatically moreso than any correlation between lower death rates and armed targets. What we need to do is stop focusing on guns and start focusing on ROOFS. I mean we can easily imply that it's the ROOFS that cause the higher death tolls, right? There's certainly sufficient correlation.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#658 Feb 06 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jimmy from the roofer's union just called and suggests that you delete that post.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#659 Feb 06 2013 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Even your image bears this out. Notice that Mexico has lower gun ownership than several other nations with much lower gun death rates.

That's honestly the hook you're going to hang your case on?


That and a host of other nations not included in the chart which also have strict gun control and high violent crime rates, which shows that the correlation you're trying to argue is causative doesn't really exist and certainly does not suggest that there's a causal relationship between gun laws and violent crime within any given country. The fact that most European countries happen to have both low violent crime rates and low gun ownership rates is a coincidence.

Quote:
Quote:
We should be looking at all violent crimes, regardless of how they are committed.

We could look at all homicides per nation but I'll warn you now that you won't like that data any more.


Sure. Why not?

Homicide rates tend to vary by geographical factors, not gun ownership.

But just to be sure, let's compare to Guns per capita

Look at the two nicely colored maps Joph. There is no freaking correlation at all. Some of the areas with the lowest gun ownership rates (green and yellow) have the highest homicide rates. Some areas with very high gun ownership rates (like the US) have quite moderate homicide rates. Australia has a relatively high per capita gun ownership rate (15/100), but a low homicide rate (1/100k). Meanwhile, Brazil has about half the gun ownership rate (8/100), yet has a high homicide rate (21/100k). If there was a correlation, we'd expect Brazil to have half the homicide rate as Australia, yet instead it's got 21 times the homicide rate.

There is no correlation between the two. It's a completely BS argument invented by gun control advocates by ignoring all data that doesn't support their position. By choosing to only look at nations with low crime rates when comparing to low gun ownership, they create a false impression of correlation.

Um... But even within those nations, there's no real correlation. The UK has a gun ownership rate of 6.2/100 and a homicide rate of 1.2/100k, but France has a gun ownership rate of 31.2/100 and a homicide rate of 1.1/100k. So why is France's homicide rate slightly lower than the UKs despite having 5 times as many guns per person? No correlation. While you can certainly find some nations with low rates of both, and some with high rates of both, there are so many which don't follow that pattern that you can't possibly say that one is causing the other. It's coincidence.


Quote:
Keep moving the goalposts perhaps?


Not at all. You, on the other hand, are ignoring data.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#660 Feb 06 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a completely BS argument invented by gun control advocates by ignoring all data that doesn't support their position. [...] You, on the other hand, are ignoring data.
Ha.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#661 Feb 06 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah. There's a point where you have sufficient correlation that you can imply causation. Which is the case when we look at fatality rates when civilians intervene versus when they don't.

Interestingly, the fatality rate is far lower when the shooter and targets are outside. Dramatically moreso than any correlation between lower death rates and armed targets.


Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.

Quote:
What we need to do is stop focusing on guns and start focusing on ROOFS. I mean we can easily imply that it's the ROOFS that cause the higher death tolls, right? There's certainly sufficient correlation.


I would argue it's the WALLS that are important, not the ROOFS. But then I'm just contrary like that!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#662 Feb 06 2013 at 7:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
I'm just waiting for Joph to make good on his warning about the homicide rates per country. Good times!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#663 Feb 06 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.


I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor. The argument *should be* that easy availability of firearms in a wealthy society with wide income disparity contributes negatively to the overall homicide rate. If you want to look at correlations, I think wealth is a good place to start.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

When you see high homicide rates for nations near the top of this list, that should indicate there's some societal problem. Given that indication, I'd be inclined to limit deadly weapon availability in those societies. France has a low homicide rate and fairly available deadly weapons. There seems to be no reason to limit availability in France. That's the idea. Regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm all for changing US society to be more like France. If you want more guns, then lower income disparity via strong social welfare programs. There's a problem in the US around gun violence. Yes, it may have nothing to do with guns, really. It may be an income disparity problem, or a heterogeneous society problem. It might be a cultural issue about how we view manhood. It might be thousands of other things. It might be the trade off we have to make for being a young nation with no real cohesive sense of self.

Here's the crux of the current debate: Doing nothing doesn't seem to be effective. Doing something may or may not be effective. The only "something" there's any political will to attempt at the moment is some level of increased regulation around guns. I don't see a compelling argument against this. The idea that more regulation would limit defensive use of firearms borders on the absurd. When congress is debating a bill outlawing handgun ownership wholesale, get back to me. Making it slower to stockpile weapons, and limiting capacity or cyclic rate have no noticeable impact on your argument that I can determine. If you disagree, let me know.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#664 Feb 06 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If you disagree, let me know.
If I guess right, do I get a free pizza?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#665 Feb 06 2013 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That and a host of other nations not included in the chart which also have strict gun control and high violent crime rates, which shows that the correlation you're trying to argue is causative doesn't really exist and certainly does not suggest that there's a causal relationship between gun laws and violent crime within any given country. The fact that most European countries happen to have both low violent crime rates and low gun ownership rates is a coincidence.

As previously noted, the chart is based off "developed nations" with an actual definition of "developed". Seeing as how you spend your post trying to draw comparisons to any other country except those most closely related to the US, I'm going to guess that you're just flailing randomly at this point. I mean, yeah sure, the US murder rate is lower than that of Liberia. Why you'd think that's relevant but comparing the murder rate in the US to other industrialized nations with secure democratic governments is just beyond the pale is a mystery to me. I mean, beyond the obvious reason.
gbaji wrote:
I'm just waiting for Joph to make good on his warning about the homicide rates per country. Good times!

Erm, you realize you linked to a map showing nearly every country on the original chart having a lower homicide rate than the US and you're "waiting" for me to make good on what you already proved? Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 6th 2013 9:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#666 Feb 06 2013 at 10:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.


I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor.


Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the argument that Joph and several others have been making for a week or so now. Take from that what you will.

Quote:
The argument *should be* that easy availability of firearms in a wealthy society with wide income disparity contributes negatively to the overall homicide rate. If you want to look at correlations, I think wealth is a good place to start.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html


Sure. If we can both acknowledge that this list isn't telling us anything about income disparity. Just want to clear that up right off the bat.

Quote:
When you see high homicide rates for nations near the top of this list, that should indicate there's some societal problem.


Or geographical factors. As I mentioned before, take the entire population of Finland and plop it into a similarly sized location in the middle of Africa or South America (replacing those currently living there), and change nothing else, and you'll see violent crime skyrocket. I get what you're saying in terms of wealth and violence, but being next to a nation with high poverty and violent crime is going to have an effect on your own violent crime rate. Swap the US and Canada geographically, but keep everything else the same, and we'd likely swap homicide rates as well.

I think that absolutely dwarfs the kind of social stuff you're talking about. I don't disagree that societal and wealth factors within a country affect their own violent crime rates, but who your neighbors are (and how easily their problems can spill into your country) is a pretty massive effect as well.

Quote:
Given that indication, I'd be inclined to limit deadly weapon availability in those societies. France has a low homicide rate and fairly available deadly weapons. There seems to be no reason to limit availability in France. That's the idea.


That's a circular idea though. What France shows us is that there's no direct causal relationship between the availability of deadly weapons, and their use in homicides. A nation that is violent and has lots of homicides will be violent and have lots of homicides no matter how much you restrict access to guns. I just think that you're looking at the weakest relationship here.

Quote:
Regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm all for changing US society to be more like France. If you want more guns, then lower income disparity via strong social welfare programs.


One has nothing to do with the other though, so why?

Quote:
There's a problem in the US around gun violence. Yes, it may have nothing to do with guns, really. It may be an income disparity problem, or a heterogeneous society problem. It might be a cultural issue about how we view manhood. It might be thousands of other things. It might be the trade off we have to make for being a young nation with no real cohesive sense of self.


Ok. So we'd expect to have about the same rate of homicides whether we have ready availability to firearms or not, right? So that sorta discounts the argument for stricter gun control. It's not about the guns.

Quote:
Here's the crux of the current debate: Doing nothing doesn't seem to be effective. Doing something may or may not be effective.


And restricting guns is restricting an enumerated right that the founders thought was so important that they listed it right after free speech. So we should balance the "may or may not be effective" against "will infringe the rights of the people" and perhaps look at all of the other things we could do instead.

Quote:
The only "something" there's any political will to attempt at the moment is some level of increased regulation around guns.


That's not because it's the "something" that makes sense, but because that's what the anti-gun people want to do. They'd argue for it even if our homicide rate was half what it is. If we had a homicide rate lower than Japan with our current gun laws, they'd still be arguing for tighter gun control. It's cart before the horse logic. They start by wanting to restrict and/or eliminate guns and then go looking for arguments to support what they want to do. That's where the political will comes from. It has nothing to do with reducing actual rates of violent crimes and you **** well know it.

Quote:
I don't see a compelling argument against this.


I just gave you two.

Quote:
The idea that more regulation would limit defensive use of firearms borders on the absurd.


Depends on the regulation. Certainly, there's massive evidence that regulating away conceal carry would limit defensive use of firearms, right? I've been arguing for a week that regulating away all civilian carry in certain "gun free zones" is contributing to our upswing in rampage shootings in those zones.

Quote:
When congress is debating a bill outlawing handgun ownership wholesale, get back to me. Making it slower to stockpile weapons, and limiting capacity or cyclic rate have no noticeable impact on your argument that I can determine. If you disagree, let me know.


If that was all we were talking about you might have a point. In this thread though, my argument has primarily been about two things: Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations. If not, then why have people been arguing with me for a week or so?

We can discuss those other things as well, but it's hard to take those seriously given the hard core "guns are bad and should be eliminated" background noise to the whole issue. I don't believe anyone on the gun control side of this who claims that they really just want to restrict large capacity magazines, and make sure our background check process doesn't have loopholes. They want to ban guns. Period. Failing to recognize that would be pretty darn stupid. If I thought for a moment that those things would end the debate, I and every member of the NRA would line up to implement them today. But no one actually believes that and can you really blame them?


if you're honest with yourself, you don't believe it either. The anti-gun lobby doesn't really care about magazine sizes, or background checks except as a means to the end goal of ridding society of guns. Let's not kid ourselves about this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#667 Feb 06 2013 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That and a host of other nations not included in the chart which also have strict gun control and high violent crime rates, which shows that the correlation you're trying to argue is causative doesn't really exist and certainly does not suggest that there's a causal relationship between gun laws and violent crime within any given country. The fact that most European countries happen to have both low violent crime rates and low gun ownership rates is a coincidence.

As previously noted, the chart is based off "developed nations" with an actual definition of "developed".


Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland? None of those count as developed I guess. All have higher homicide rates than the US, but all have fewer guns per capita than the US. Shocking isn't it?

Quote:
Seeing as how you spend your post trying to draw comparisons to any other country except those most closely related to the US...


Except Mexico, which is right next door and has like 4 times the homicide rate as the US.

Quote:
I mean, yeah sure, the US murder rate is lower than that of Liberia.


And those other developed low gun owning European countries I listed earlier. If your point is that there's no freaking correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates, you'd be correct. Can we move on now?

Quote:
Why you'd think that's relevant but comparing the murder rate in the US to other industrialized nations with secure democratic governments is just beyond the pale is a mystery to me.


Backpedaling a bit there? So now, it's not developed nations, but developed nations with "secure democratic governments". Um... How about instead of cherry picking your data, we just look at the vastly more obvious correlations out there, like geography. You know, like I'd pointed out at least 3 times now.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm just waiting for Joph to make good on his warning about the homicide rates per country. Good times!

Erm, you realize you linked to a map showing nearly every country on the original chart having a lower homicide rate than the US and you're "waiting" for me to make good on what you already proved?


That the homicide rates don't correlate to gun ownership rates? Yes. I proved that quite nicely. The bizarre thing is that you're continuing to argue even though the very data you asked for proves you wrong. I never said that the US didn't have a higher homicide rate than most European nations. I said that the reason we have a higher homicide rate has nothing to do with gun ownership rates. And I've proven that. Thanks for reminding me of that data though. Helped a lot.

Edited, Feb 6th 2013 8:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#668 Feb 06 2013 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?

It's almost as though I previously linked various criteria and you ignored it. Fancy that.

Well, lead a horse to water, yadda yadda...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#669 Feb 06 2013 at 10:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
It would be kinda interesting to index nations by homicide rate by gun ownership rate. So the US has 4.8 homicides per 100k and we divide that by the number of guns per 100 people, and end out with 4.8/88= .054. The UK has 1.2 homicides per 100k, and we divide that by their gun rate and end out with 1.2/6.6=0.181. So the UK's homicide rate is 3 times as high when we adjust for relative gun ownership. Interesting...


Ok. This really means nothing, but that's the point. There's no correlation. Not sure how many times I have to point this out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#670 Feb 06 2013 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
You didn't look at his chart, did you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#671 Feb 06 2013 at 10:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?

It's almost as though I previously linked various criteria and you ignored it. Fancy that.


And it's almost as though I previously mentioned the circular nature of listing only "gun deaths" and you ignored that. Fancy that indeed.


Do you see how once we change "gun deaths" to "homicides", the correlation you thought was there disappears? Which is precisely why that chart used that data instead. Cart leading horse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#672 Feb 06 2013 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
You didn't look at his chart, did you.


I did. I also noted that "gun deaths" isn't the correct metric to use. Do you see why? Now do you see why I singled out these nations?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#673 Feb 06 2013 at 10:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
Now do you see why I singled out these nations?
Because you're cherry picking data to fit your narrative.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#674 Feb 06 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And it's almost as though I previously mentioned the circular nature of listing only "gun deaths" and you ignored that. Fancy that indeed.

Because "circular logic!" is your fallback when you're wrong. Nothing more complex to it than that.

"Oh shit, that data clearly links number of guns in developed nations to the number of homicid--- wait, no, umm... circular logic! Doesn't count!"

In reality, there's nothing "circular" about it. I understand that you don't like the data and you're very uncomfortable with how it conflicts with your ideology but that's not really the same thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#675 Feb 07 2013 at 4:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Correlation is not causation. European nations happen to have stricter gun control laws. But there's no evidence that they enjoy lower violent crime rates because of those laws.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

So wait, correlation does not equal causation, except for when you say it does?

Do you have someone who looks after you?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#676 Feb 07 2013 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations.

Nope, not close. Universal background checks are on the radar, limiting high capacity magazines is on the radar. If Christ showed up and let the Democrats know they could have a free miracle, they might try for a national gun registry law enforcement could easily access. Nowhere, anywhere in the country, is there any initiative to restrict concealed carry or to create new "gun free zones". In fact, I hadn't heard the term in public debate in the last decade. When I goggled it, all that's returned are conservative op eds against it. Imagine you bringing it up in a post where you don't read any of those. Bizarre!

Anyway, let's have your arguments against background checks and limiting 32 shot Saiga shotgun drums.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#677 Feb 07 2013 at 6:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
I personally haven't heard any news on gun-free zones or laws against concealed weapons. That isn't to say that there weren't any, but all I have heard were magazine sizes, background checks and automatic weapons.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#678 Feb 07 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
gbaji wrote:

If that was all we were talking about you might have a point. In this thread though, my argument has primarily been about two things: Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations.

I thought I'd been following this issue pretty closely, but I've not heard a thing about gun free zones and conceal carry laws being expanded federally. Smiley: confused

Maybe you're hearing about local policy stuff gbaji and confusing it with federal policy debate. Then again, maybe you're just making stuff up.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#679 Feb 07 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
Elinda wrote:
Then again, maybe you're just making stuff up.
Well, he said "definitely" so it must be true, and if you were honest with yourself you'd absolutely believe it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#680 Feb 07 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,003 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
You didn't look at his chart, did you.


I did. I also noted that "gun deaths" isn't the correct metric to use. Do you see why? Now do you see why I singled out these nations?

You realize there are come legitimate reasons for using gun deaths? Should I link Mr. Chinese guy who stabbed 22 kindergarteners but didn't manage to kill any of them again?

It's certainly not the end-all, but guns are just better at killing things than anything else your average person can wield easily. There's a reason we give them to soldiers. If they could do just as well with a switchblade or a broadsword we wouldn't waste our money with the guns. That money is better spent carpeting offices anyway, so I'm told.

An assault weapons ban isn't really addressing the big problems certainly, but anything that turns a gun crime into knife crime is going to lower the fatality rate. You can go the route of trying to keep guns out of the hand of criminals here if that's more palatable, it's probably going to be more effective anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#681 Feb 07 2013 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:
Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations.


Where do you get these ideas? I haven't read one thing regarding adding gun free zones (which wouldn't have helped) or further restricting concealed carry (again, which wouldn't help).

What is being discussed is getting the kinds of firearms and ammunition that can kill 20 kids and a couple teachers without even changing the clip out of civilians' hands so nutballs can't get hold of them. What is being discussed is gun control measures that make sense - limiting the amount of rounds that can be fired and drawing the line between what the citizens actually need to protect themselves\hunt and what a handful of completely paranoid doomsayers want.

It's paranoid delusion and just foolish to think 1. that just randomly arming untrained civilians with fully automatic assault rifles will in any way protect them from government tyranny(they are much more likely to kill their friends and neighbors than trained armed forces attacking) and 2. adding more guns into circulation will somehow stop the mentally ill from being mentally ill and shooting up schools.

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 11:08am by Torrence
#682 Feb 07 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Where do you get these ideas?

The conservative echo chamber. The same place you get the idea that Obama's Birth Certificate is a thing to be taken even vaguely seriously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#683 Feb 07 2013 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
The same place you get the idea that Obama's Birth Certificate is a thing to be taken even vaguely seriously.

When everyone knows his birth certificate is a joke!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#684 Feb 07 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Now do you see why I singled out these nations?
Because you're cherry picking data to fit your narrative.


I'm pointing out cherry picking in the data used in that chart. By using "gun deaths" instead of "homicides", it creates a false perception that violence is correlated to gun ownership by concealing the fact that these nations have higher homicide rates despite having much lower gun ownership rates.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#685 Feb 07 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And it's almost as though I previously mentioned the circular nature of listing only "gun deaths" and you ignored that. Fancy that indeed.

Because "circular logic!" is your fallback when you're wrong. Nothing more complex to it than that.


No. I use it when it's accurate. Correlating gun ownership to "gun deaths" is circular. It's like starting with an assumption that blue cars cause accidents, supporting this by correlating the ownership of blue cars to accidents involving blue cars and patting yourself on the back because by lowering blue car ownership rates you've lowered blue car accidents. But its the rate of all accidents we care about, right? But you've got that covered, because you'll just talk about accidents and "blue car accidents" as though they are the same and hope no one notices.

Quote:
"Oh shit, that data clearly links number of guns in developed nations to the number of homicid--- wait, no, umm... circular logic! Doesn't count!"


Just like that. The data does not link gun ownership to "homicides" (either in developing nations or not). But that wont prevent you from pulling a bait and switch in order to pretend that "gun deaths" and "homicides" are the same statistic. BTW, this is precisely why I mentioned that list of countries. They are all countries with higher homicide rates, but you'd never know it by looking at the chart you linked earlier. Using "gun deaths" instead of "homicides" allows you to conceal the data that really matters.

Quote:
In reality, there's nothing "circular" about it. I understand that you don't like the data and you're very uncomfortable with how it conflicts with your ideology but that's not really the same thing.


The data doesn't conflict with my ideology at all. It supports my position. What you're doing is manipulating the data to make it look like it supports yours. I'll once again point out my bewilderment at why people so strongly hold positions when they knowingly lie to defend them. If you have to lie about the data to defend your position, why do you hold it? Clearly, there's no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate in a country, but instead of accepting this and moving on, you use "gun deaths" instead and pretend it's the same thing. Why? Clearly that's not why you support gun control, or you wouldn't support gun control. So why not argue with the reasons you actually hold the position you do? I mean, I assume there are reasons, so why parrot BS data like that chart? That can't possibly convince anyone of anything and you have to know it's BS.

Why do you really oppose gun ownership?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#686 Feb 07 2013 at 4:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

The data doesn't conflict with my ideology at all. It supports my position


That frequently happens when you start with the ideology and go looking for data to support it. Odd, that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#687 Feb 07 2013 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,003 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

The data doesn't conflict with my ideology at all. It supports my position


That frequently happens when you start with the ideology and go looking for data to support it. Odd, that.


someproteinguy wrote:
All the money is in big data these days. What you need is to get someone to give you obscene amounts of money so you can spend years creating a ginormous database with so many datapoints it becomes virtually useless. Besides the more people who can find what they want in your data the more citations you get, and easier it is to make money!


Smiley: nod

I tell you people, its a gold mine.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#688 Feb 07 2013 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

If that was all we were talking about you might have a point. In this thread though, my argument has primarily been about two things: Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations.

I thought I'd been following this issue pretty closely, but I've not heard a thing about gun free zones and conceal carry laws being expanded federally. Smiley: confused


Gun free zones are already federal. That's the point. And concealed carry issues are what conservatives care about. This is another case of liberals not knowing what conservatives actually think or want, because they're only hearing the liberal arguments. Conservatives honestly don't care much about background checks, or reasonable magazine size restrictions. We think they're wastes of time and often cover for more problematic regulation, but those actual things that liberals spend a ton of effort making people think this issue is about aren't really that important to conservatives.

It's just funny because when you talk to liberals about current gun issues, all they talk about is magazine sizes and background checks. When you talk to conservatives they talk about concealed carry and gun free zones. Huge disconnect on the issue. Which is part of what I'm trying to point out.


Of course, I'm sure Smash will just say "See! Conservative echo chamber". Um... It's what conservatives are talking about. Perhaps instead of assuming what we care about, you should actually listen to us for a change? It's the liberals who tend to live in an echo chamber, because conservatives know exactly what the left is arguing for, but it's shocking how few liberals know what conservative think we should be doing in the wake of a shooting like Newtown.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#689 Feb 07 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Gun free zones are already federal. That's the point. And concealed carry issues are what conservatives care about. This is another case of liberals not knowing what conservatives actually think or want, because they're only hearing the liberal arguments. Conservatives honestly don't care much about background checks, or reasonable magazine size restrictions. We think they're wastes of time and often cover for more problematic regulation, but those actual things that liberals spend a ton of effort making people think this issue is about aren't really that important to conservatives.

False. In fact, you don't even believe those things, you just haven't been told that you don't yet. Don't worry, you'll be informed what you believe in short order as bills make their way into Congress. Be sure to update us.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#690 Feb 07 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
You didn't look at his chart, did you.


I did. I also noted that "gun deaths" isn't the correct metric to use. Do you see why? Now do you see why I singled out these nations?

You realize there are come legitimate reasons for using gun deaths?


List some then. I can think of only one strong reason to use gun deaths as the metric to graph against gun ownership when comparing multiple nations. And that's to create a false impression that more guns equal more violent crime/death. While there might be uses for "gun death" (like if you want to look at accidents involving guns for instance), using it in preference to "homicide" when the context is whether guns make a society more or less likely to be violent is misleading at best.

Quote:
Should I link Mr. Chinese guy who stabbed 22 kindergarteners but didn't manage to kill any of them again?


For what purpose? Should we link to all the folks who were wounded but not killed in various shooting events as well? There were 58 people wounded in the Colorado Theater shooting. Do we count or not count those? We can, but we'd be talking about something completely different.

Quote:
It's certainly not the end-all, but guns are just better at killing things than anything else your average person can wield easily.


Yes. Which means that it's an equalizer. If a burly guy comes into granny's home with a knife and wants to kill her, there isn't much she can do about it even if she also has a knife. But if she's got a gun, she can protect herself from him. Hence, why homicide rates are relevant here while gun deaths are not. If she kills the intruder bent on killing her, it'll show up as a gun death but *not* as a homicide, while if she doesn't have a gun and he kills her instead, it shows up as the opposite. That's why counting gun deaths instead of homicides is the wrong metric to use. We want the gun death instead of the homicide in that case, right? Obviously, we'd prefer if neither died, but concealing the death of granny by a knife wielding killer in the stats because it's not a gun death is misleading and circular. It assumes all we care about is whether someone died by a gun, and not whether they died, or whether their death was a homicide or justifiable self defense.


Those differences are important, right?


Quote:
An assault weapons ban isn't really addressing the big problems certainly, but anything that turns a gun crime into knife crime is going to lower the fatality rate.


Maybe. But it'll increase the victimization rate, everything else staying the same. Because in the process of making the criminal use a knife instead of a gun, you'll also make the victims less able to defend themselves. I just think you're chasing the wrong end of the issue here.

That's a general crime assessment, if we're talking just about attempted mass killings, it wont have any effect at all. We can't limit gun ownership to the point where someone can't obtain sufficient firepower to kill a whole bunch of unarmed victims. We just can't. The criminal will always have the advantage in that situation. The VT shooter used a pair of pistols (with 10 and 15 round magazines respectively), killed 32 people and wounded 17. Clearly, restricting him to just 10 round magazines would not have made much or any difference. People planning these sorts of attacks will bring whatever they need with them, and plan the attack based on what they have.

We can't turn those into knife crimes. So short of that, it makes more sense to try to minimize the number of fatalities when such things happen and perhaps even deter them in the first place. That requires more firearms in the hands of civilians, not fewer. One person with a gun might have been able to save many lives that day. Speculation? Sure. But it's a reasonable speculation.

Again, we're arguing the wrong side of the issue and going in the wrong direction.

Quote:
You can go the route of trying to keep guns out of the hand of criminals here if that's more palatable, it's probably going to be more effective anyway.


Sure. No harm in trying. I have no issues at all with tightening up background checks on firearms to make sure that felons and folks already declared mentally unstable can't buy them. My problem is that the VT case is somewhat of an exception (and the laws were already in place anyway, just not implemented properly). Most shootings like this are not committed by people who would be blocked by such things (not already felons, nor already declared mentally unstable). Thus, my concern isn't with closing the loopholes, but the idea that there will be an attempt expand the criteria for being denied purchase of a weapon in the first place. I don't think that's a great idea. There are very few cases of folks using weapons purchased at a gun show to commit a mass shooting, for example (actually, I'm not aware of any). It's a myth that doesn't really happen, so while the general value of closing the "small sales vendor" loophole in terms of gun crime in general is legitimate, it really has no bearing at all on the kinds of shooting that is prompting the change.

I just think it's usually a bad idea to use the anger over one thing to push for laws that don't affect that thing, but do affect something else. It becomes about someone using that emotion to push an agenda instead of looking for actual solutions to the problem.

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 3:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#691 Feb 07 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Gun free zones are already federal. That's the point. And concealed carry issues are what conservatives care about. This is another case of liberals not knowing what conservatives actually think or want, because they're only hearing the liberal arguments. Conservatives honestly don't care much about background checks, or reasonable magazine size restrictions. We think they're wastes of time and often cover for more problematic regulation, but those actual things that liberals spend a ton of effort making people think this issue is about aren't really that important to conservatives.

False.


Which part? That gun free zones are already federal? I can link to the legislation if you want. Or do you mean about Conservatives not caring much about those things?

Quote:
In fact, you don't even believe those things, you just haven't been told that you don't yet. Don't worry, you'll be informed what you believe in short order as bills make their way into Congress. Be sure to update us.


When I do, I'll be sure to remind you of the "We think they're wastes of time and often cover for more problematic regulation" part of what I wrote. Magazine size restrictions have about nothing to do with anything. But we both know that wont be the poison pill in the legislation once it's written. And when conservatives oppose said legislation for those other reasons, the only thing the left will talk about is how unreasonable we are for opposing magazine size restrictions. Yes, we think they're stupid and a waste of time and money, but that's never going to be the entirety of the law the left writes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#692 Feb 07 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Remember when I said you were making points irrelevant to the argument? You're doing it again. That's why people are wondering where you're getting these gun-free zones/concealment laws. It's because you're bypassing the overall concerns expressed by the people and arguing your points that are irrelevant to the subject.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#693 Feb 07 2013 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Remember when I said you were making points irrelevant to the argument? You're doing it again. That's why people are wondering where you're getting these gun-free zones/concealment laws. It's because you're bypassing the overall concerns expressed by the people and arguing your points that are irrelevant to the subject.


Huh? I'd wager that 8 out of the 10 pages of this thread have consisted of me arguing for elimination of gun free zones and broadening of concealed carry, and several other people arguing against me. That's hardly "irrelevant". It's what this thread has largely been about. It's only been in the last page that someone piped up with the whole "but that's not what anyone's arguing about". Um... It's what I'm arguing about. I don't really care what you think other people want to argue over.

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 4:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#694 Feb 07 2013 at 6:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Just like that. The data does not link gun ownership to "homicides" (either in developing nations or not).

It does.
Quote:
BTW, this is precisely why I mentioned that list of countries. They are all countries with higher homicide rates...

So is Nigeria and Afghanistan. But we're discussing developed, industrialized nations for a reason. You need to keep trying to cherry-pick because your "data" can't stand without it.

For OECD nations besides the US (the ones represented in the chart) the average homicide rate is 2.15 (1.5 without Mexico included) per 100k and the average firearms per 100 people is 17. For the US, the homicide rate per 100k is 4.8 with 88 firearms per 100 people. I'd think there's a strong argument for excluding Mexico since they're an outlier due to a protracted drug war but to avoid you crying about it, I'll say fuck it and keep them in... and we still have over twice the average homicide rate as everyone else. Without Mexico, it's three times as many homicides as the average.

But yeah, "circular logic!" and we should be comparing the US to Russia and Cuba and Nigeria! Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
Why do you really oppose gun ownership?

Wanting less deaths isn't reason enough? Bizarre.

[edit: Originally said four times the average rather than three. Math is hard, let's go shopping]

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 7:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#695 Feb 07 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Just like that. The data does not link gun ownership to "homicides" (either in developing nations or not).

It does.
Quote:
BTW, this is precisely why I mentioned that list of countries. They are all countries with higher homicide rates...

So is Nigeria and Afghanistan. But we're discussing developed, industrialized nations for a reason.


Sure. Which is why I then constrained my list to developed, industrialized nations (in Europe no less) and showed how if you use "homicides" instead of "gun deaths", said chart no longer appears to support your argument even with that limited set.

Quote:
You need to keep trying to cherry-pick because your "data" can't stand without it.


Where's the cherry picking? Even when we use the same set of countries you want to use, once we use the more relevant figure of "homicides", the data no longer supports your argument.

Quote:
For OECD nations besides the US (the ones represented in the chart) the average homicide rate is 2.15 (1.5 without Mexico included) per 100k and the average firearms per 100 people is 17. For the US, the homicide rate per 100k is 4.8 with 88 firearms per 100 people.


Ok. What do you think that means though? And what's with averaging the entire set you're comparing to the US? You're eliminating variance when you do that, but it's the variance that matters in this case. You're arguing that there's a universal causative relationship between increased gun ownership and "bad things" (let's use "homicide rate" for right now) among developed nations and that data showing a correlation between those provides evidence of that causal relationship. Right? You're using this assumption (that this is a universal factor in developed nations) as an argument against high gun ownership in the US. But to show this, you'd need to show that said relationship *is* universal.

For this to be universal among those nations we should expect that as gun ownership rate increases, we should see a corresponding and consistent increase in homicide rates among all the nations in the set. But we don't. There are nations with much lower gun ownership rates, but higher homicide rates than the US. If you chart them in this way (using the same method as in the earlier chart, but using homicides instead of gun deaths), and you then draw lines between the 0,0 point and each country, you'll find a somewhat random splay of lines. If there was a consistent correlation (every X rate of gun ownership produces Y rate of homicide) we should expect all the countries to fall more or less on a line.


They don't fall anywhere close to a line. There is no correlation. Thus we cannot claim that gun ownership has anything at all to do with the resulting homicide rates in any of these countries and thus can't use that non-existent correlation to argue that increased gun ownership in the US will cause (or is causing) a high homicide rate. You can make the claim, but the data simply doesn't support it.


Quote:
I'd think there's a strong argument for excluding Mexico since they're an outlier due to a protracted drug war but to avoid you crying about it, I'll say fuck it and keep them in... and we still have over twice the average homicide rate as everyone else.


That's not how the data should be read though. You could average the US in with all the developed nations except the Ukraine and make a similar argument about that country even though it has a very low gun ownership rate. Who's cherry picking data now? The reason you aren't averaging all developed nations and comparing against Ukraine or Russia is precisely because that wouldn't present a result that would appear to support your argument.

Quote:
Quote:
Why do you really oppose gun ownership?

Wanting less deaths isn't reason enough? Bizarre.


Except that there's not even close to sufficient evidence that lower gun ownership in the US would result in fewer deaths. And anyone who isn't starting with an insane bias should be able to trivially determine this by looking at the data on gun ownership rates and homicide rates. You're intentionally misinterpreting the data in order to argue in support of an already taken position rather than taking a position based on what the data actually indicates. Seriously. Pretend you have no position on gun ownership and look at the data. There's nothing there that indicates that increased gun ownership has anything at all to do with resulting homicide rates. Nothing at all.

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 5:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#696 Feb 07 2013 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Where's the cherry picking? Even when we use the same set of countries you want to use, once we use the more relevant figure of "homicides", the data no longer supports your argument.

Sure it does. You don't like it buty denying it doesn't make it less true.

Quote:
Ok. What do you think that means though? And what's with averaging the entire set you're comparing to the US?

It's averaged because, frankly, trying to chart is creates thirty dots virtually on top of one another and the US sitting off on its own. As for what it "means", you already know.

Look, I get that you don't like this. That's fine. You're likely on the losing end of this debate in that some form of enhanced gun control legislation will make its way through. Given your inability to see clear trends in things like climate change, election polling, support for SSM, etc I'm not honestly going to sit here and debate "data" with you over and over while you insist that only the data you say is true is true.

Or, hey, maybe President Romney will show us how no state will ever vote to legalize SSM due to global cooling, right? The data proves it! I'm just too brainwashed and liberal to notice!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#697 Feb 07 2013 at 11:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,003 posts
gbaji wrote:

Sure. No harm in trying. I have no issues at all with tightening up background checks on firearms to make sure that felons and folks already declared mentally unstable can't buy them. My problem is that the VT case is somewhat of an exception (and the laws were already in place anyway, just not implemented properly). Most shootings like this are not committed by people who would be blocked by such things (not already felons, nor already declared mentally unstable). Thus, my concern isn't with closing the loopholes, but the idea that there will be an attempt expand the criteria for being denied purchase of a weapon in the first place. I don't think that's a great idea. There are very few cases of folks using weapons purchased at a gun show to commit a mass shooting, for example (actually, I'm not aware of any). It's a myth that doesn't really happen, so while the general value of closing the "small sales vendor" loophole in terms of gun crime in general is legitimate, it really has no bearing at all on the kinds of shooting that is prompting the change.

I just think it's usually a bad idea to use the anger over one thing to push for laws that don't affect that thing, but do affect something else. It becomes about someone using that emotion to push an agenda instead of looking for actual solutions to the problem.


This is where we probably are just going to agree the most. I realize the assault ban thing has momentum now, but I really wish this more practical concern was getting more attention. So many gun owners seem to be in favor of this route anyway (well at lest compared to other options), seems like a logical place to find some common ground (you pubbies like that word still right? Smiley: wink) and do something meaningful.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#698 Feb 08 2013 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
gbaji wrote:


I just think it's usually a bad idea to use the anger over one thing to push for laws that don't affect that thing, but do affect something else. It becomes about someone using that emotion to push an agenda instead of looking for actual solutions to the problem.

Law-makers have always used the momentum of the populace to entice an unwieldy bureaucracy into action. This is our history.

I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve, but I think over-all most of the politicians simply want fewer people dead. Dead people can't vote ya know.

Gun Show guns aren't used in mass school shootings, but they've been implicated in numerous drug deaths on both sides of the Mexican border. The gun show 'exemption', in my opinion, is one of the stupidest things ever allowed into a piece of federal legislation. This is as good a time as any to attempt to fix that pandering blunder.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#699 Feb 08 2013 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why do you really oppose gun ownership?


So the liberal pinko government can impliment a totalitarian rule like every other state which doesn't let it's citizens have automatic weapons, obviously!


Oh...wait...Smiley: dubious
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#700 Feb 08 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

Sure. No harm in trying. I have no issues at all with tightening up background checks on firearms to make sure that felons and folks already declared mentally unstable can't buy them. My problem is that the VT case is somewhat of an exception (and the laws were already in place anyway, just not implemented properly). Most shootings like this are not committed by people who would be blocked by such things (not already felons, nor already declared mentally unstable). Thus, my concern isn't with closing the loopholes, but the idea that there will be an attempt expand the criteria for being denied purchase of a weapon in the first place. I don't think that's a great idea. There are very few cases of folks using weapons purchased at a gun show to commit a mass shooting, for example


The hundreds of thousands used in "non mass" homicides are unimportant, clearly.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#701 Feb 08 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
Why do you really oppose gun ownership?


Many of us don't oppose it at all, we just don't think that automatic assault rifles make sense for today's civilian activities. There's guns designed for hunting and protection, and others designed to just kill as many people with as little effort in a short a time as possible. That latter type of gun only belongs in the hands of trained military or police personnel - not strapped to Joe the Bookkeeper's back.

As far as you wanting to expand concealed carry because it would help to deter such crimes - not sure that would help. Expanding open carry might, because when 20 year old 130lbs soaking wet psycho #93849 looks around and sees four or five tough looking guys with a handguns on their hips, he might think twice about taking that AR-15 out from under his trench coat and opening fire into the crowd.

Then again, he might not. It still seems like it would be better to just take that AR-15 out of the equation entirely.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CST
Debalic, Kuwoobie, Poldaran, Samira, someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (63)