Modded Mustang Forums banner

41 - 60 of 76 Posts

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Wherd. My wife just tried to get me to come to bed twice. I'm wide awake, though. :thumb:

---------- Post added at 02:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 AM ----------



What knee jerk reactions and posturing are you talking about?

All talk, no action?

You side with more anti-2A laws?

So basically lawmakers trying to pass unconstitutional gun laws restricting law abiding citizens rights and the citizens fighting back to preserve those rights is wrong in your view?

Because our representative take an oath of office to protect and defend the constitution, not infringe, restrict and revoke it.

They did the right thing by backing down because they heard a massive amount of feedback from pro-constitution, pro-2A and legal gun owners. :thumb:
The point I was trying to make is that passing tougher gun laws hasn't been a failed experiment, because the theory hasn't been put to practice. That is an observation, not an opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
The point I was trying to make is that passing tougher gun laws hasn't been a failed experiment, because the theory hasn't been put to practice. That is an observation, not an opinion.
Actually, that isn't true. The Clinton era "Brady Bill" was ineffective at lowering crime. It affected guns based on appearance (just like the new S.A.F.E. act) and was dropped because it did nothing to stop crime, merely gave us more restrictions on what we could buy.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
Actually, that isn't true. The Clinton era "Brady Bill" was ineffective at lowering crime. It affected guns based on appearance (just like the new S.A.F.E. act) and was dropped because it did nothing to stop crime, merely gave us more restrictions on what we could buy.
What he said^ :foshizzle:
 

·
I DO WHAT I WANT
Joined
·
164 Posts
The point I was trying to make is that passing tougher gun laws hasn't been a failed experiment, because the theory hasn't been put to practice. That is an observation, not an opinion.
While it's not a perfect comparison, we can look to other countries (e.g. the UK) to get an idea of what strict gun control looks like in a democratic first world country. In that particular instance, it looks like 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 people, or a scant 56 gun murders per year. Their homicide rates regardless of weapon type are 1.45 per 100,000 (compared to 4.55 per 100,000 in the US). So there's that. Again, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. :eek:uttahere:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
While it's not a perfect comparison, we can look to other countries (e.g. the UK) to get an idea of what strict gun control looks like in a democratic first world country. In that particular instance, it looks like 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 people, or a scant 56 gun murders per year. Their homicide rates regardless of weapon type are 1.45 per 100,000 (compared to 4.55 per 100,000 in the US). So there's that. Again, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. :eek:uttahere:
While gun crime may be lower due to the sweeping gun control in the U.K. there is still a significant amount of violent crime without the use of guns. Just a brief Google search shows a high number of knife attacks, but the tool is not the issue.

Blaming attacks on guns, saying there will be less attacks if there are less guns is just bad reasoning. There are still attacks even without guns in England, Japan, etc. People are simply violent, it's one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain. That is the key element. Removing guns won't remove crime, as evidenced by England, Canada, and other countries. There will still be plenty of violence to go around, the method will simply change is all.

Gun control is not violence control. That's a key element that people don't seem to want to consider.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Actually, that isn't true. The Clinton era "Brady Bill" was ineffective at lowering crime. It affected guns based on appearance (just like the new S.A.F.E. act) and was dropped because it did nothing to stop crime, merely gave us more restrictions on what we could buy.
I said tougher gun laws. The same study that pointed out the ineffectiveness of the Brady Bill blamed it on not going far enough to be relevant, although it did stop the illegal sale of a firearm on 1.9 million occasions despite how limited the law actually was. The problem was these people could simply go to a private seller and get a gun anyway. If you are trying to secure your house, logically you would lock the front door as well as the back, versus leaving one open like this law did.

Back to what kind of law I was referring to, no, it hasn't been tried in America.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
The point I was trying to make is that passing tougher gun laws hasn't been a failed experiment, because the theory hasn't been put to practice. That is an observation, not an opinion.
If it's not opinion, prove it. Back it up with some facts and data we can see instead of all these stupid empty one line answers while we run around digging up all the facts and proving the liberal talking points bullshit. :thumb:
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
If it's not opinion, prove it. Back it up with some facts and data we can see instead of all these stupid empty one line answers while we run around digging up all the facts and proving the liberal talking points bullshit. :thumb:
*insert 10 links to biased websites supporting my opinion with their opinion here*

lolololololol......

Seriously though, I'm saying that there hasn't been strict federal gun laws in the US. How am I supposed to show you data on something that hasn't happened? Furthermore, I never made the implication that such actions would work, just that saying they would not has no factual basis(the argument you and Woodman have made). So, if anything, I would ask you to prove your initial claims. But I won't, because I already know the result will only be disappointment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
I'm just going to chime in and say that while I'm concerned about the violence that is associated with guns I don't support gun restrictions until the 2nd amendment is either amended to include a new interpretation or the SCOTUS rules certain gun restriction laws constitutional.

As far as I understand it the constitution is clear in that ANY law infringing on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/
noun
noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements

1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"

It has been mentioned that Alexander Hamilton, one of our forefathers, stated that the constitution was a document that should be interpreted within the context of the times that it is being interpreted so until that happens the amendment is clear in it's present interpretation.

John
 

·
I DO WHAT I WANT
Joined
·
164 Posts
While gun crime may be lower due to the sweeping gun control in the U.K. there is still a significant amount of violent crime without the use of guns. Just a brief Google search shows a high number of knife attacks, but the tool is not the issue.

Blaming attacks on guns, saying there will be less attacks if there are less guns is just bad reasoning. There are still attacks even without guns in England, Japan, etc. People are simply violent, it's one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain. That is the key element. Removing guns won't remove crime, as evidenced by England, Canada, and other countries. There will still be plenty of violence to go around, the method will simply change is all.

Gun control is not violence control. That's a key element that people don't seem to want to consider.
Did you even read my post? The homicide rate in the UK is far lower than in the US regardless of weapon type. While strict gun control a la the UK does lead to other types of violence (e.g. knife, club) becoming more prevalent, the fact remains that a madman with a knife can do far, far less damage before being stopped than a madman with even the simplest modern firearm, all else being equal. Firearms are a huge force multiplier.
 

·
King Trashmouth
Joined
·
21,891 Posts
*insert 10 links to biased websites supporting my opinion with their opinion here*

lolololololol......

Seriously though, I'm saying that there hasn't been strict federal gun laws in the US. How am I supposed to show you data on something that hasn't happened? Furthermore, I never made the implication that such actions would work, just that saying they would not has no factual basis(the argument you and Woodman have made). So, if anything, I would ask you to prove your initial claims. But I won't, because I already know the result will only be disappointment.
While not necessarily federal, what about the extremely restrictive gun laws in areas such as NY, CA, Chicago, etc...? They don't seem to quell crime.

Did you even read my post? The homicide rate in the UK is far lower than in the US regardless of weapon type. While strict gun control a la the UK does lead to other types of violence (e.g. knife, club) becoming more prevalent, the fact remains that a madman with a knife can do far, far less damage before being stopped than a madman with even the simplest modern firearm, all else being equal. Firearms are a huge force multiplier.
That also opens a hole in your argument; the UK's homicide rate has historically been below that of the US with or without guns. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Either side can cherry pick data, and the result is that you cannot correlate posession of guns to crime. Israel, Switzerland, and Canada all have more guns per capita than the US with a lower homicide rate. If there's no empirical trend, there's no sense in banning them. Instead we should focus on factors such as poverty, education, access to mental health care, culture, etc... which do have a significant impact.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
While not necessarily federal, what about the extremely restrictive gun laws in areas such as NY, CA, Chicago, etc...? They don't seem to quell crime.
For the same reason the Brady Bill didn't effectively stop crime. There is a very easy way to maneuver around the law(going out of state). These laws in reality don't make it significantly more difficult to obtain a gun. But what if we had a law that actually made it difficult to get one? Rather basic reasoning would say that it would make a difference, and the UK comparison is pretty significant statistical proof of the concept I have visualized below:




That also opens a hole in your argument; the UK's homicide rate has historically been below that of the US with or without guns. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Either side can cherry pick data, and the result is that you cannot correlate posession of guns to crime. Israel, Switzerland, and Canada all have more guns per capita than the US with a lower homicide rate. If there's no empirical trend, there's no sense in banning them. Instead we should focus on factors such as poverty, education, access to mental health care, culture, etc... which do have a significant impact.
The initial rate doesn't need to match. If the rate is at a determined amount, gun laws are implemented, and the rate drops, that is a pretty obvious trend. If he was making the claim that we would see crime drop as low as the UK, that would be an unreasonable statement.

But you do raise a great point. There is a huge correlation between education and poverty. There is also a huge correlation between poverty and crime. While the data is from 2009, the OECD did a study on child poverty, which is directly relative to poverty in the total population. The US was reported to have 20.6% of kids suffering from poverty, Canada at 15.1%, and Switzerland at 9.4%. Compare those to intentional homicide rate: US at 4.8%, Canada at 1.6%, and Switzerland at 0.6%.

I think it's pretty apparent where I'm going with this. The fact that yes, wide income disparity causes a bunch of issues with crime being one of them(how many times have I said this?).

(Just a friendly reminder: Just because I make an argument to support something does not mean I agree with it. I said this in my first post, and just wanted to remind everyone of such.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
I said tougher gun laws. The same study that pointed out the ineffectiveness of the Brady Bill blamed it on not going far enough to be relevant, although it did stop the illegal sale of a firearm on 1.9 million occasions despite how limited the law actually was. The problem was these people could simply go to a private seller and get a gun anyway. If you are trying to secure your house, logically you would lock the front door as well as the back, versus leaving one open like this law did.

Back to what kind of law I was referring to, no, it hasn't been tried in America.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
The Brady bill also banned "high capacity magazines" limiting them to no more than 10 rounds. That wasn't effective either, and did nothing to prevent crime. Regarding the sales through the "back door", again most gun shows have businesses selling guns, through their inventory, which is regulated and have to go through the background check system. I have yet to be at one with private party sales. The private party sales are generally done through Gunbroker.com and other similar sites, which still require the gun to be shipped to an FFL, and still have to go through the background check before it ends up in your hands. Very few "private party" sales happen between individuals, I've done it twice, sold a gun to a friend, and sold another to my brother in law. To date, neither has been used in a crime.

---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

Did you even read my post? The homicide rate in the UK is far lower than in the US regardless of weapon type. While strict gun control a la the UK does lead to other types of violence (e.g. knife, club) becoming more prevalent, the fact remains that a madman with a knife can do far, far less damage before being stopped than a madman with even the simplest modern firearm, all else being equal. Firearms are a huge force multiplier.
Stopping a madman with a knife isn't "easier" than stopping someone with a gun. Just a few months ago a group of people with knives ran through a subway station and seriously injured over 20 people, roughly the same number of people that tend to get injured with an active shooter. Any weapon is effective in the hands of a dedicated attacker. Seeing a knife as less dangerous because you have to be within hitting distance to use it means nothing. Most of these gunmen aren't snipers, and get within 20-30 feet of their target before opening fire because they are not expert marksmen, and get enjoyment out of their action and want to see it up close. Just because you can kill from a longer distance with a gun doesn't mean it's used that way.

The problem isn't, and has never been the weapon used. It's always the people. Stop blaming the tool, stop using the tool as the bad guy. It is the bad guy that is at fault, no matter what his weapon is. More restrictions on gun ownership won't stop us from killing each other, limitations on what kind of guns we can own won't help. The idea is, more guns = less crime. This has been proven every time CCW laws are passed that allow civilians to exercise their right to carry. Criminals realize the target isn't as easy, and they make other plans.

Crime won't go away. Violence won't go away. Why limit our ability to combat it?
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
The Brady bill also banned "high capacity magazines" limiting them to no more than 10 rounds. That wasn't effective either, and did nothing to prevent crime. Regarding the sales through the "back door", again most gun shows have businesses selling guns, through their inventory, which is regulated and have to go through the background check system. I have yet to be at one with private party sales. The private party sales are generally done through Gunbroker.com and other similar sites, which still require the gun to be shipped to an FFL, and still have to go through the background check before it ends up in your hands. Very few "private party" sales happen between individuals, I've done it twice, sold a gun to a friend, and sold another to my brother in law. To date, neither has been used in a crime.
Exactly. A 10 round clip is still 10 rounds. And I would venture to say your experience of private sales doesn't mean they don't happen. Of course there is another popular method even at gun shows. Straw purchases. Of course the Supreme Court just granted the Federal government sweeping powers to make such purchases illegal.


Stopping a madman with a knife isn't "easier" than stopping someone with a gun. Just a few months ago a group of people with knives ran through a subway station and seriously injured over 20 people, roughly the same number of people that tend to get injured with an active shooter. Any weapon is effective in the hands of a dedicated attacker. Seeing a knife as less dangerous because you have to be within hitting distance to use it means nothing. Most of these gunmen aren't snipers, and get within 20-30 feet of their target before opening fire because they are not expert marksmen, and get enjoyment out of their action and want to see it up close. Just because you can kill from a longer distance with a gun doesn't mean it's used that way.

The problem isn't, and has never been the weapon used. It's always the people. Stop blaming the tool, stop using the tool as the bad guy. It is the bad guy that is at fault, no matter what his weapon is. More restrictions on gun ownership won't stop us from killing each other, limitations on what kind of guns we can own won't help. The idea is, more guns = less crime. This has been proven every time CCW laws are passed that allow civilians to exercise their right to carry. Criminals realize the target isn't as easy, and they make other plans.

Crime won't go away. Violence won't go away. Why limit our ability to combat it?
Now you're just being ridiculous, Woodman. Seriously. This is what is wrong with what you wrote, and I'm pretty sure you knew this when you wrote it(your terminology is a tell tale sign).

  • There is a significant difference between 20 injured and 20 dead with 6 injured.
  • You're talking about 20-30 feet as if its a meaningless distance as opposed to arms reach. Distance is an advantage when you're attacking a crowd, or any number of people.
  • More guns does not equal less gun crime(the kind we have been talking about since mass shootings became the topic). It's a fact, not an opinion. The most comprehensive study to date, which compiled national data from every state from 1981-2010 showed that that for each 1% increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Exactly. A 10 round clip is still 10 rounds. And I would venture to say your experience of private sales doesn't mean they don't happen. Of course there is another popular method even at gun shows. Straw purchases. Of course the Supreme Court just granted the Federal government sweeping powers to make such purchases illegal.




Now you're just being ridiculous, Woodman. Seriously. This is what is wrong with what you wrote, and I'm pretty sure you knew this when you wrote it(your terminology is a tell tale sign).

  • There is a significant difference between 20 injured and 20 dead with 6 injured.
  • You're talking about 20-30 feet as if its a meaningless distance as opposed to arms reach. Distance is an advantage when you're attacking a crowd, or any number of people.
  • More guns does not equal less gun crime(the kind we have been talking about since mass shootings became the topic). It's a fact, not an opinion. The most comprehensive study to date, which compiled national data from every state from 1981-2010 showed that that for each 1% increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
I agree there is a difference between 20 injured and 20 dead, but it all depends on the severity of the wounds. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I have little doubt there were deaths related to the knife attack, if time permits I'll look it up. But, depending on how deep the wounds were, there is a high potential for life long disfigurement, loss of use of limbs, etc. I see that as a higher cost than death, because death while hurtful for the family and loved ones, is not really a continuous cost. You pay for the funeral, and it's done. Serious wounds if they cause disfigurement, dismemberment, or the loss of use of limbs adds to your cost of living significantly. Even if you can get reconstructive surgery, there are still scars (I have several on my face that are now over 20 years old but still there, and I had the advantage of the best plastic surgeon in the area), and the emotional cost is huge as well. How easily will some of these people go into crowded, public places again? How safe will they feel that they've been stabbed/cut in a public place (and I think this was in China or Japan) and they cannot arm themselves to defend themselves should it happen again?

The point is, it's easy for you and I to armchair quarterback this, and say that there is a vast difference between a knife attack and a gun attack. I say they're equal not necessarily in the damage done, but in the overall problems caused, and you say they're not because a knife isn't as "dangerous" as a gun.

Now, I don't think guns are a magic wand that will make this all stop. There are only a few opportunities to use a gun properly in a situation where it doesn't cause more harm, and that situation may or may not arise. That's why I want more people able to carry them. If I'm in a public place full of 10,000 people, and I'm the only one with a gun, the chances of my gun being an effective deterrent to the crime is slim to none. If 1000 people are carrying guns, then the odds go up one or more of them has the ability to do something to stop the problem.

It's a numbers game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
My problem with the whole "More CCW carriers means less crime" is that these people don't train daily to react to an active shooter. Even people that train daily to confront an active shooter can get it wrong when they are put in a real situation and the adrenalin is pumping.

I agree that having someone else with a gun in the room when an active shooter goes on his rampage can certainly mitigate the situation but it can also have disastrous effects from friendly fire.

Therein lies the dilemma. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

I think it's pretty apparent that the analogy Eric posted about knife vs. gun has some serious legs. Guns in comparison to a knife are way more efficient killing machines. To me that is the difference. The efficiency of the weapon is the distinction here.

John
 

·
King Trashmouth
Joined
·
21,891 Posts
For the same reason the Brady Bill didn't effectively stop crime. There is a very easy way to maneuver around the law(going out of state). These laws in reality don't make it significantly more difficult to obtain a gun. But what if we had a law that actually made it difficult to get one? Rather basic reasoning would say that it would make a difference, and the UK comparison is pretty significant statistical proof of the concept I have visualized below:

Thank you for your patronizing MSPaint graph. A simpleton like me couldn't have possibly comprehended it without it.

But honestly, I hear it all the time, especially Chicago, complaining that "well it's because all the states around us have lax gun laws." Well then by that reasoning if the states around you have a ton of guns, they should be a regular wild west show, right? But they actually have less crime. How does that work?

It's almost as if firearm availability does not correlate to crime.



The initial rate doesn't need to match. If the rate is at a determined amount, gun laws are implemented, and the rate drops, that is a pretty obvious trend. If he was making the claim that we would see crime drop as low as the UK, that would be an unreasonable statement.
But it shows an inherent weakness in the comparison, that you're not comparing two like quantities. It's difficult to extrapolate unless all the other conditions are the same, and about the only commonality between the UK and US is language and 1st world status. Completely different culture and geography.

If we were to mandate malaria nets in all of Africa, you would see a drop in the cases of malaria. Does that mean if you mandated them in the US (or even Canada!) it would produce a similar effect?

I wish I could find one of the federal reports that concluded that there is no correlation, positive or negative between gun ownership/firearm laws and crime. Guns alone won't make things better or worse. It's a combination of factors, which no one cares to address.

And I would venture to say your experience of private sales doesn't mean they don't happen. Of course there is another popular method even at gun shows. Straw purchases. Of course the Supreme Court just granted the Federal government sweeping powers to make such purchases illegal.
...and you're assuming that the people with malicious intent are going to just give up on private party sales if they're banned? The only people that it will stop are the ones that are honest to begin with, which seems kind of ass-backwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Thank you for your patronizing MSPaint graph. A simpleton like me couldn't have possibly comprehended it without it.
Can we leave the condescending tone out of it? You make a good argument. You don't need to debase it with unnecessary attitude.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Did you even read my post? The homicide rate in the UK is far lower than in the US regardless of weapon type. While strict gun control a la the UK does lead to other types of violence (e.g. knife, club) becoming more prevalent, the fact remains that a madman with a knife can do far, far less damage before being stopped than a madman with even the simplest modern firearm, all else being equal. Firearms are a huge force multiplier.
How about you look at the data for violent crimes in the UK before gun bans vs violets crimes after. You'll notice there is a significant increase in number of crimes. Can you find this data or are you going to make me post the data and then leave the thread like last time?

If you're going to stock around in this thread, why don't you present the data to back up your claim from the first page instead of ignoring data that goes against what you want to see.
 

·
I DO WHAT I WANT
Joined
·
164 Posts
My problem with the whole "More CCW carriers means less crime" is that these people don't train daily to react to an active shooter. Even people that train daily to confront an active shooter can get it wrong when they are put in a real situation and the adrenalin is pumping.

I agree that having someone else with a gun in the room when an active shooter goes on his rampage can certainly mitigate the situation but it can also have disastrous effects from friendly fire.

Therein lies the dilemma. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

I think it's pretty apparent that the analogy Eric posted about knife vs. gun has some serious legs. Guns in comparison to a knife are way more efficient killing machines. To me that is the difference. The efficiency of the weapon is the distinction here.

John
Exactly what I was trying to say, and I'll say it again here: firearms are a huge force multiplier. One person with one handgun can put out 20 or more rounds in a lethal caliber without reloading. Each one of those rounds can kill or maim at significant range, even if they miss the initial target.

One person with one knife has to close the gap between himself and his would-be victim and fight through any unarmed resistance they may offer to inflict even superficial wounds. You can't really run from a bullet, and you can't really offer unarmed resistance to a shooter at anything other than point blank range, but you can run from a knife wielding assailant and you can potentially defend yourself against a knife attack without having your own weapon.

Also, a great example of what you said about even those who train daily in these situations being imperfect is the shooting last year in NYC, where the cops shot 9 (!!) innocent bystanders in attempting to take down the bad guy.

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

How about you look at the data for violent crimes in the UK before gun bans vs violets crimes after. You'll notice there is a significant increase in number of crimes. Can you find this data or are you going to make me post the data and then leave the thread like last time?

If you're going to stock around in this thread, why don't you present the data to back up your claim from the first page instead of ignoring data that goes against what you want to see.
I have not been able to find an unbiased source for such statistics. A Google search returns virtually all pro-gun sites. Besides, the UK doesn't measure "violent crime" in the same way as the U.S. This mostly unrelated article explains that point better than I can. Here is a 2010 study showing a statistically significant decrease in violence in Australia after that country's implementation of strict gun control and here is a Time article from 2012 discussing the subject further.
 
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Top