|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2012 06:02 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:52 Excludos wrote:On December 16 2012 05:39 sCCrooked wrote:This is actually an amazing read. Do you know of any other thorough studies such as this one? Well, they're trying to claim that over 1/3 of the Norwegian population own guns, and that there are guns in 32% households..Which would be absolutely insane. Maybe they included the AG3s used by the National guard? In which case 1. they are not owned by the people, only stored, and 2, are unable to fire due to missing pins (which where retracted exactly because one was misused to kill a bunch of guys). GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003). Guess we'll have to look into this source to see how they got that then. Even though its from Harvard, no reason not to check up on it 
An article I just found (I norwegian. I could link it, but I doubt it owuld be much help. + it doesn't actually cite sources. But its from a newspaper, and at least sounds very sane) says that while there are 1 318 004 registered weapons in norway, there are only 470 000 people with registered weapons cards + around 4000 collective (shooting..teams? I'm bad at translating this). Which means that those who own guns usually owns more than one. This brings the percentage down from 26% households to 9.4%. This also overlaps a lot with my own experience growing up in a rural area. Only the farmers owned guns for hunting, but they usually owned 3 or 4 each.
|
On December 16 2012 06:22 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:16 Reaps wrote:On December 16 2012 06:08 Esk23 wrote:This is interesting, the shooter actually tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting but was denied due to mental illness: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495This is for the people who think you can walk into a store and just buy a gun like you're buying a bottle of water, it is not true. The guns he used for the murders were stolen from his mother. That video said nothing about being denied for having a mental illness, it said it was because they had stricter gun laws in that state and has a much longer waiting period. Where did you get mental illness from? Also the fact he stole the weapons from his mom does not help your arguement, it actualy goes agaisnt it. Wrong, because stolen weapons are guess what... illegal. They're discussing the legal variety right now and trying to increase restrictions on them when illegal firearms are usually the tool of choice.
The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong".
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?hp&_r=0
The principal and another staff member at an elementary school in Connecticut had rushed a gunman who forced his way inside, an act of courage that cost both of them their lives, a school superintendent said on Saturday. In all, the gunman killed 26 people, 20 of them children, in the nation’s second-deadliest school shooting.
If only these heroes had had something that could have put them on an even footing with the killer... what could that have been... what could have given them a chance to stop him in his tracks when they decided to fight back... hmmm.
Maybe something like what this principal had?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
Or something like what these students had?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong".
So people should be restricted in their rights because of their family members... ever heard of collective punishment or restriction? It's against the law.
So yes, "wrong."
|
I only read a little bit and already there is something completely ridiculous in it. The article compares Germany 80 million people to Luxembourg half a million. The problem is Luxembourg is meaningless in comparing homicide rates because it is murders per 100k. With only have a million people the murder rate per year will differ greatly. Sometimes very high for Europe sometimes pretty low. Of couse the article take the highest rate about 10 per 100k. And then should persuade me that the restrict gun laws in Luxembourg don't work?
|
On December 16 2012 06:02 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:52 Excludos wrote:On December 16 2012 05:39 sCCrooked wrote:This is actually an amazing read. Do you know of any other thorough studies such as this one? Well, they're trying to claim that over 1/3 of the Norwegian population own guns, and that there are guns in 32% households..Which would be absolutely insane. Maybe they included the AG3s used by the National guard? In which case 1. they are not owned by the people, only stored, and 2, are unable to fire due to missing pins (which where retracted exactly because one was misused to kill a bunch of guys). GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003). Guess we'll have to look into this source to see how they got that then. Even though its from Harvard, no reason not to check up on it
that weird luxembourg number is probably wrong too, at least according to http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which also has well documented sources and a couple governments funding it (i also found that site on a pro guns forum so the info is probably unbiased)
they're also clumping all kinds of guns together, owning a hunting shotgun (mostly shoots at ducks!) is different to owning a handgun (mostly kept close at hand to defend self!), which again is different to owning an assault rifle (hopefully used only to gawk at, if used with any sort of purpose at all good luck to all involved!)
restrictive gun policy (what exists in eu) means that hunting weapons will be prevalent among these, while permissive policy means more guns will be closer at hand in tense situations (ie handguns, what happens in usa), and murder rates reflect that
|
On December 16 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:32 Dfgj wrote:
I'm curious as to why what the founding fathers thought is that important. Surely we update our views as times move along, based on current situations, and don't cling to interpretations of the beliefs of ancient dead people? America is a young country, it's their foundation myth. Unfortunately the legendary all knowing fathers actually wrote some things down in America which means that rather than simply praising their memory they instead get their views endlessly quoted, perverted and then quoted and bestowed with a strange moral authority when they really weren't that much different from millions of other dead rich white guys. King Arthur is much better, he probably wasn't even real but he does the trick.
The constitution is the ultimate law of the United States. Just like when you interpret any law, when interpreting the constitution you have to try to understand what the people who wrote it meant. This is a common problem in law, when a piece of legislation is drafted but it doesn't specifically address a situation that arises. So the people who are affected have to try to interpret the law to figure out how it should be applied to the new situation.
The values and principles stated in the constitution, while not perfect, have served the US well. It's gone from being a tiny upstart colony to the richest, most powerful nation in the world. These values have also heavily influenced all western democracies. So it's no surprise that a lot of people still have respect for them.
For those two reasons, comparing the constitution to something King Arthur may have said is a very very bad analogy.
|
@Excludos Now the thing is those numbers you found, were they from the same year? The source I read there stated the study numbers were accurate as of 2003. Were the numbers you found from that year as well? Its very important they line up.
The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong".
Yes, still wrong. Stolen firearms aren't legal firearms. There's no debate here no matter what you might wish.
|
On December 16 2012 06:29 sCCrooked wrote:@Excludos Now the thing is those numbers you found, were they from the same year? The source I read there stated the study numbers were accurate as of 2003. Were the numbers you found from that year as well? Its very important they line up. Show nested quote +The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong". Yes, still wrong. Stolen firearms aren't legal firearms. There's no debate here no matter what you might wish.
It's what people have been debating the entire thread, gun laws are not strict enough. So for you to say there is no debate is you just trying to cop out.
But judging from the rest of your posts there is no point argueing with people like you.
|
On December 16 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:07 aksfjh wrote:On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Thank you so much!! This is exactly what the gun control debate needs. Cold hard facts in the form of statistics analyzed by experts in the field. No more endless talk about people's personal, biased views, or wishy washy anecdotal evidence that gets people nowhere. Its certainly nice to talk about in its own right, but if you actually want to find a meaningful conclusion about whether gun control is a good idea, then simply look at the these scientific review papers; at the very least its as close as you're going to get to an answer. The paper was written by a guy who is part of a libertarian thinktank. Not really an academic paper as much as a paper parading around as one. Don't get me wrong, I'm against gun control as much as the next guy, but people need to see this crap for what it really is. "He holds views I disagree with so he's a fraud!" Nice. Here's another study, by those sinister libertarians, of civilians using guns to defend themselves against criminals in the US, using newspaper reports, crime records, and interviews: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdfGuns are used hundreds of thousands - possibly millions - of times a year by civilians to defend themselves. And yet, the streets are not awash with blood shed by gun-crazy rednecks who shoot first and ask questions later. The vast majority of gun defenses consist of a civilian brandishing a gun and the criminal fleeing, no shots fired or needed to be fired. How is this possible? Is the fantasy of the civilian who cannot use his gun properly and cannot decide when to use it properly just that, a fantasy? (Of course it is. But the geniuses who know everything here don't care, they already know everything.)
I discredit him because he obviously has an agenda he's promoting, that he openly admits to. The data can be taken into consideration, but on the grounds that you realize it has a purpose other than academic inquiry.
|
On December 16 2012 05:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:39 sCCrooked wrote:This is actually an amazing read. Do you know of any other thorough studies such as this one? Well, they're trying to claim that over 1/3 of the Norwegian population own guns, and that there are guns in 32% households..Which would be absolutely insane. Maybe they included the AG3s used by the National guard? In which case 1. they are not owned by the people, only stored, and 2, are unable to fire due to missing pins (which where retracted exactly because one was misused to kill a bunch of guys).
Yes, those probably count(ed?), the removal and separate storage of the firing pins is pretty recent is it not? Also, Sweden has a lot more, which is actually quite reasonable. How many hunters do you know? Because I know something like 5, each of them have 3-5 guns. I actually expect there to be quite a few more guns that I do not know about among friends and family. But these are military weapons, specialized sports guns and hunting tools. Not the American style semiautomatic playthings and personal protection weapons. That is where I think the difference lies.
|
On December 16 2012 06:31 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:29 sCCrooked wrote:@Excludos Now the thing is those numbers you found, were they from the same year? The source I read there stated the study numbers were accurate as of 2003. Were the numbers you found from that year as well? Its very important they line up. The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong". Yes, still wrong. Stolen firearms aren't legal firearms. There's no debate here no matter what you might wish. It's what people have been debating the entire thread, gun laws are not strict enough. So for you to say there is no debate is you just trying to cop out. But judging from the rest of your posts there is no point argueing with people like you.
Your ability to deduce proper conclusions must be questioned if you think that copping out because you can't come up with anything other than "no you're wrong" as a baseless statement is a legitimate way to have a discussion.
Stolen firearms are not legal firearms. I don't even know what you thought you were responding to. You keep changing and making no sense.
Taguchi wrote:that weird luxembourg number is probably wrong too, at least according to http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which also has well documented sources and a couple governments funding it (i also found that site on a pro guns forum so the info is probably unbiased)
I checked that site and its source numbers are from 2011 and 2012. Not 2003 like the study I was referring to.
**Edited update**
Taguchi wrote:
it has full data on luxembourg from 1997 to 2008, where are u looking? click luxembourg --> gun death & injury, data is there
I know it has full data but that's just it. You're including 5 years of changes and data that didn't exist in the study I was referencing. If both studies don't parallel each other in date, one cannot accurately compare figures to the respective years, can they not?
Reaps wrote:
Coming from you that is amusing though, as you clearly dont see the point.
If his mother was not able to buy the fire arms then her son would of had to find another "way" or get the guns from somewhere else which would of taken longer and could of resulted in less deaths or been stopped before he could actualy kill anyone.
Get it now? I tried to dumb down my post as much as possible for you as you clearly only see what you want to see.
Actually you're the one who doesn't see the point as you're clearly wrong in trying to say that stolen goods are legal in any way.
You're acting like there's no illegal firearms market or sales that happen which goes to further prove that you're not knowing enough about this topic to properly discuss it.
I never try to dumb myself down for others and don't try to act high and mighty like you're doing it too. I know far more on this topic than you do and its painfully obvious every time you post that you can't keep a story right and you can't even remember what you were responding to in a previous post. You're not above anyone except in how much you let your ego consume you.
|
On December 16 2012 04:41 JingleHell wrote:
Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16.
The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun ...
No, you are misunderstanding the argument. If the US somehow became a police state and stopped allowing elections, no one is suggesting that some people with handguns could march on Washington DC. But they could certainly make it a lot harder to oppress people. If normal people have access to guns, even normal handguns and rifles, they would have the ability to create a powerful resistance movement. This is called "asymmetrical warfare".
You may think this is fantasy. Maybe so. But americans have a history of distrusting big government (although that distrust seems to be fading in recent times!) Europeans generally seem to be a lot more willing to trust their government to do what's best for them. But that hasn't always worked out very well either...
|
On December 16 2012 06:08 Esk23 wrote:This is interesting, the shooter actually tried to buy a rifle days before the shooting but was denied due to mental illness: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495This is for the people who think you can walk into a store and just buy a gun like you're buying a bottle of water, it is not true. The guns he used for the murders were stolen from his mother.
In certain states you literally can walk into a gun show and buy a gun or purchase a gun from the internet without any background checks. The fact that the shooter was denied buying a gun in this state is actually an excellent example of why strict gun control with mandatory background checks on all purchases (which the NRA vociferously lobbies against) is a good thing.
|
I discredit him because he obviously has an agenda he's promoting, that he openly admits to. The data can be taken into consideration, but on the grounds that you realize it has a purpose other than academic inquiry.
No, you discredit him because you disagree with his agenda.
Having an agenda does not in and of itself mean that the information is being twisted or massaged or slanted or being presented selectively. You just don't like the implications of the information so you've found the fast and simple way to dismiss it without having to engage with it.
What you're doing is taking the easy way out to avoid thinking. What you mean by "the data can be taken into consideration" is "I won't take it into consideration."
Holding up pure academic inquiry (an ideal and a fantasy) as the only unmuddied way to truth is not only promoting something that doesn't exist, it's just a way to derail discussion into an unresolvable competition of bona fides and unsupportable assertions about the agendas and integrity of people we do not know.
|
On December 16 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:07 aksfjh wrote:On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Thank you so much!! This is exactly what the gun control debate needs. Cold hard facts in the form of statistics analyzed by experts in the field. No more endless talk about people's personal, biased views, or wishy washy anecdotal evidence that gets people nowhere. Its certainly nice to talk about in its own right, but if you actually want to find a meaningful conclusion about whether gun control is a good idea, then simply look at the these scientific review papers; at the very least its as close as you're going to get to an answer. The paper was written by a guy who is part of a libertarian thinktank. Not really an academic paper as much as a paper parading around as one. Don't get me wrong, I'm against gun control as much as the next guy, but people need to see this crap for what it really is. "He holds views I disagree with so he's a fraud!" Nice. Here's another study, by those sinister libertarians, of civilians using guns to defend themselves against criminals in the US, using newspaper reports, crime records, and interviews: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdfGuns are used hundreds of thousands - possibly millions - of times a year by civilians to defend themselves. And yet, the streets are not awash with blood shed by gun-crazy rednecks who shoot first and ask questions later. The vast majority of gun defenses consist of a civilian brandishing a gun and the criminal fleeing, no shots fired or needed to be fired. How is this possible? Is the fantasy of the civilian who cannot use his gun properly and cannot decide when to use it properly just that, a fantasy? (Of course it is. But the geniuses who know everything here don't care, they already know everything.)
well, the streets wash alot of innocent blood, because of guns.
2 months earlier for example. A father, shoots his own son in the head; he thought it was a burglar.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14134818-police-connecticut-man-kills-suspected-burglar-then-learns-its-his-teenage-son?lite
Though this example, proves nothing of course.
The USA is just stuck. People need to defend themselves and burglars need to arm themselves. It's a cycle which cannot be solved easily.
Still, people asking for "scientific" articles, and proof if the guns are responsible, while it's so clear, does not make any sense.
Somehow, it feels like the tabacco industry is repeating itself, only now they try to convince people that guns are good for ya.
|
On December 16 2012 06:29 sCCrooked wrote:@Excludos Now the thing is those numbers you found, were they from the same year? The source I read there stated the study numbers were accurate as of 2003. Were the numbers you found from that year as well? Its very important they line up. Show nested quote +The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong". Yes, still wrong. Stolen firearms aren't legal firearms. There's no debate here no matter what you might wish.
2006. Not that it matters that much. There haven't been any gun restrictive laws passed in the last few years that would sway 23% of the population to hand over their weapons over night.
|
On December 16 2012 06:35 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:31 Reaps wrote:On December 16 2012 06:29 sCCrooked wrote:@Excludos Now the thing is those numbers you found, were they from the same year? The source I read there stated the study numbers were accurate as of 2003. Were the numbers you found from that year as well? Its very important they line up. The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong". Yes, still wrong. Stolen firearms aren't legal firearms. There's no debate here no matter what you might wish. It's what people have been debating the entire thread, gun laws are not strict enough. So for you to say there is no debate is you just trying to cop out. But judging from the rest of your posts there is no point argueing with people like you. Your ability to deduce proper conclusions must be questioned if you think that copping out because you can't come up with anything other than "no you're wrong" as a baseless statement is a legitimate way to have a discussion. Stolen firearms are not legal firearms. I don't even know what you thought you were responding to. You keep changing and making no sense.
Coming from you that is amusing though, as you clearly dont see the point.
If his mother was not able to buy the fire arms then her son would of had to find another "way" or get the guns from somewhere else which would of taken longer and could of resulted in less deaths or been stopped before he could actualy kill anyone.
Get it now? I tried to dumb down my post as much as possible for you as you clearly only see what you want to see.
|
On December 16 2012 06:38 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 16 2012 06:07 aksfjh wrote:On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Thank you so much!! This is exactly what the gun control debate needs. Cold hard facts in the form of statistics analyzed by experts in the field. No more endless talk about people's personal, biased views, or wishy washy anecdotal evidence that gets people nowhere. Its certainly nice to talk about in its own right, but if you actually want to find a meaningful conclusion about whether gun control is a good idea, then simply look at the these scientific review papers; at the very least its as close as you're going to get to an answer. The paper was written by a guy who is part of a libertarian thinktank. Not really an academic paper as much as a paper parading around as one. Don't get me wrong, I'm against gun control as much as the next guy, but people need to see this crap for what it really is. "He holds views I disagree with so he's a fraud!" Nice. Here's another study, by those sinister libertarians, of civilians using guns to defend themselves against criminals in the US, using newspaper reports, crime records, and interviews: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdfGuns are used hundreds of thousands - possibly millions - of times a year by civilians to defend themselves. And yet, the streets are not awash with blood shed by gun-crazy rednecks who shoot first and ask questions later. The vast majority of gun defenses consist of a civilian brandishing a gun and the criminal fleeing, no shots fired or needed to be fired. How is this possible? Is the fantasy of the civilian who cannot use his gun properly and cannot decide when to use it properly just that, a fantasy? (Of course it is. But the geniuses who know everything here don't care, they already know everything.) well, the streets wash alot of innocent blood, because of guns. 2 months earlier for example. A father, shoots his own son in his head; he thought it was a burglar. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14134818-police-connecticut-man-kills-suspected-burglar-then-learns-its-his-teenage-son?lite
How many accidental gun deaths in the US are there a year? 1,000? 10,000? Try around 500.
Out of 300 million guns in the country, out of the billions of times guns are fired and handled every year.
So try again.
|
I would just like to add, that here in Canada , it isn't that hard to get a gun. The Gun license costs about 300$. But you are restricted from carrying it around except for your own home and in your car if you are travelling to a gun range or other designated shooting areas.
I am not aware of the gun laws in the US however, are you guys allowed to just carry it around anywhere?
|
On December 16 2012 06:35 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:31 Reaps wrote:On December 16 2012 06:29 sCCrooked wrote:@Excludos Now the thing is those numbers you found, were they from the same year? The source I read there stated the study numbers were accurate as of 2003. Were the numbers you found from that year as well? Its very important they line up. The fact that his mother was allowed to buy weapons without having any background checks on her family is whats wrong with the gun laws atm along with much more.
So no, not "wrong". Yes, still wrong. Stolen firearms aren't legal firearms. There's no debate here no matter what you might wish. It's what people have been debating the entire thread, gun laws are not strict enough. So for you to say there is no debate is you just trying to cop out. But judging from the rest of your posts there is no point argueing with people like you. Your ability to deduce proper conclusions must be questioned if you think that copping out because you can't come up with anything other than "no you're wrong" as a baseless statement is a legitimate way to have a discussion. Stolen firearms are not legal firearms. I don't even know what you thought you were responding to. You keep changing and making no sense. Show nested quote +[b]Taguchi wrote: that weird luxembourg number is probably wrong too, at least according to http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which also has well documented sources and a couple governments funding it (i also found that site on a pro guns forum so the info is probably unbiased) I checked that site and its source numbers are from 2011 and 2012. Not 2003 like the study I was referring to.
it has full data on luxembourg from 1997 to 2008, where are u looking? click luxembourg --> gun death & injury, data is there
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
