|
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 06:34 h41fgod 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). 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.
The removal of the firing pins was in 2002. And I would also think that Sweden had more firearms than Norway, due to the rural areas being more "rural" (meaning more farmers and hunters). But in that article, the swedes doesn't even reach 2/3 of what apparantly Norway has. Again, I call bs on it.
And I completely agree about the "useage" as well. Not sure about Sweden, but in Norway you're also required to take courses in weapon useage and safety before you are allowed to use one for hunting. This is what we want with weapons restriction. Not an outright ban of "all weapons ever", which so many in this thread seems to think.
|
On December 16 2012 06:42 patronage wrote: 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?
In every state but Illinois yes. And a federal appeals court just struck down the Illinois law that banned open carry outside the home.
And yet, the city of Chicago (Illinois) has one of the highest rates of gun crime, violence, and murder. 5-10 people are shot in Chicago almost every day, with at least some of those dying.
And yet, there aren't multiple shootouts across each state every day with law-abiding citizens opening up. Almost all actual firings of guns (outside of hunting or target practice) are by criminals engaged in criminal activities.
|
On December 16 2012 06:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:38 Timmsh wrote: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.
helpful chart here, sadly i cant directly post it
|
On December 16 2012 06:26 dragoonier wrote: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?
You really don't understand how rates work; population size differences do not matter for rates. If you want to make the argument that Luxembourg and Germany have different rates due to other reasons, then sure you are more than welcome to without bringing up population size differences because that's one of the few things we can control as researchers by using....rates.
|
On December 16 2012 06:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:38 Timmsh wrote: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.
500 does not sound enough? I was just talking about innocent killing not accidental killing (and what does this mean acually?)
|
On December 16 2012 06:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:38 Timmsh wrote: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 think that is 60 times higher than in Sweden when adjusted per capita and gun.
|
On December 16 2012 06:53 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:26 dragoonier wrote: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? You really don't understand how rates work; population size differences do not matter for rates. If you want to make the argument that Luxembourg and Germany have different rates due to other reasons, then sure you are more than welcome to without bringing up population size differences because that's one of the few things we can control as researchers by using....rates.
His point is that with a small population the rate will vary a lot from year to year. one year it can be very high, but the next very low. The document shows bias by taking the the year with highest rate.
|
On December 16 2012 06:53 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:26 dragoonier wrote: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? You really don't understand how rates work; population size differences do not matter for rates. If you want to make the argument that Luxembourg and Germany have different rates due to other reasons, then sure you are more than welcome to without bringing up population size differences because that's one of the few things we can control as researchers by using....rates. The size of the population matter for variance...
|
Perhaps an extremely ambitious study should be done to see if the culture, laws and social factors in US are encouraging more criminal activity. Regardless if guns are banned or not, if there are more criminals, there is going to be more violence.
Right?
|
Good article here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/index.html?iref=obinsite
"On Friday morning, a man walked through the entrance of an elementary school and, without warning, began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Before he was subdued, nearly two dozen were hit. While it sounds like the horrific massacre in Connecticut, this attack took place about 8,000 miles away in central China. And while several of the victims were reported in critical condition, none of the 22 children were killed. The 36-year-old suspect in China -- which has strict gun control laws -- attacked the children with a knife, according to local reports.
"The huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon," said Dr. Ding Xueliang, a Harvard-educated sociologist at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong.
As the world shares in the horror of the attack that left at least 28 dead, including 20 school children, the attack has rekindled the gun-control debate in the U.S. and international wonder at the propensity of gun-related deaths in America. Police: 20 children among 26 victims
Wei Jingru, a primary school student injured in a knife attack, receives medical treatment in a hospital. "In terms of the U.S., there's much easier availability of killing instruments -- rifles, machine guns, explosives -- than in nearly every other developed country," Dr. Ding said.
"In the United States, we had 9,000 people killed with guns last year, in similar countries like Germany 170 (killed with guns), in Canada 150. There's a reason for that," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, told CNN's Piers Morgan.
"The proof in the pudding is that in every other industrialized nation except the United States, they have reasonable gun control laws, and they have hundreds of people killed each year -- not 9,000 or 10,000 a year -- killed by guns."
The United States has, by far, the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 people, followed by Serbia (58.2), Yemen (54.8) and Finland/Switzerland (45.7 each), according to GunPolicy.org, an international database at the University of Sydney.
While nations such as South Africa, El Salvador and Thailand have much higher rates of gun homicides per year, the United States rate of 3.12 deaths per 100,000 people is the highest among industrialized nations."
|
This is all interesting data but again gun ownership is so high there's obviously going to be more gun related deaths.
This needs to be compared to other crime rates in the USA and other nations. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to take all the violent crime figures and work out honestly whether the huge number of guns in the USA is good, bad or makes no difference there. I'm not saying you would be guaranteed to get a definitive answer, but surely you'd have a good idea. Right now it seems way too opinionated and not nearly well enough informed. I personally have absolutely no idea about the crime figures and wouldn't even know where to begin in trying to look for a reliable source.
The sad thing seems to be people on both sides of the argument refuse to listen to the other side and just quote contrary figures and arguments saying that the other side is just lying and making everything up.
I read that one post a few pages back that claimed to be quoting a reputable study and interestingly the result was that guns did not equal crime.
If people spent a little bit of time looking at these figures I think some powerful conclusions could be reached, rather than just arguing about the right to bear arms or quoting horror stories of schools being shot up.
It doesn't matter what your out-dated rights are, if they aren't in your best interests anymore things need to be changed. If they are still in your interest then they should be upheld, not because they are part of a historical document, but because it's actually for the best.
|
On December 16 2012 06:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:42 patronage wrote: 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? In every state but Illinois yes. And a federal appeals court just struck down the Illinois law that banned open carry outside the home. And yet, the city of Chicago (Illinois) has one of the highest rates of gun crime, violence, and murder. 5-10 people are shot in Chicago almost every day, with at least some of those dying. And yet, there aren't multiple shootouts across each state every day with law-abiding citizens opening up. Almost all actual firings of guns (outside of hunting or target practice) are by criminals engaged in criminal activities.
Those are some pretty interesting statistics. Do you have an official report by chance? Just for my own curiosity =)
|
On December 16 2012 04:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:46 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 04:43 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying? Well you took a clear position about the feelings of the founding fathers about an hypothetical scenario, and then talked about I was assuming something. Either way we're contemporary guys giving our opinions and although you've backed off, you started off by pretending to have knowledge. Were you buddies with Jefferson? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" He said he thinks and then he said both assumptions (for and against) were baseless, you have very much misrepresented what he said. -> Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... He makes an assumption, but THEN backpeddles, saying his assumption is baseless yet better. no I'm saying that I think my assumption is better, but that doesn't mean I know it's better, or that I think I know it's better. I just happen to be of the opinion that it's better. :p
|
On December 16 2012 04:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying? also: what else can we talk about, other than interpretations? the drafters didn't have the benefit of knowing what weapons would or wouldn't exist. we have to interpret their words and decide how they should be applied. unless you have some prior knowledge that we don't have? to quote you: "How did you acquire this knowledge, sire?" Or, we could stop being so archaic and update the Constitution instead of treating it like the Bible. The thing is outdated and completely ill-equipped to deal with modern technological and ethical issues. I agree that updating the Constitution is desirable and probably necessary, but I think you and I have a different idea of what should be updated about it. at the end of the day though, the rule of law requires that we hesitate for sober reflection before we decide to radically change fundamental laws.
|
Or, we could stop being so archaic and update the Constitution instead of treating it like the Bible. The thing is outdated and completely ill-equipped to deal with modern technological and ethical issues.
Is it now? That's why the United States went from one disaster to the next and was a center of ethical and technological backwardness in the 20th century, the Constitution is archaic and completely ill-equipped to deal with modern technological and ethical issues.
Just gotta laugh at comments like yours.
|
my opinion is no. More bad people that are really using a gun than the good ones (good people prob only threat to shoot). And when it is that easy to buy or get a gun, like stealing it from your parents well that is bad.
|
No. Carrying weapons for 'protection' only serves to aggravate potential crime and it encourages easy access for feeble minded individuals to weaponry. It makes no logical sense.
It takes 1 bullet to kill someone. All guns come with several magazines. If you want to hurt someone, then go to the gym, bulk up and go and hurt them if you have to - at least then its honourable and partially justified. Don't just buy a gun and end up hurting/killing more people in the ensuing fallout.
|
|
On December 15 2012 05:28 sc2guy wrote: No.
User was warned for this post
Cmon, I understands the rules of TL but for this gun issues matter, there is really no point of debate. It is just a short and simple no.
|
On December 16 2012 09:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Or, we could stop being so archaic and update the Constitution instead of treating it like the Bible. The thing is outdated and completely ill-equipped to deal with modern technological and ethical issues. Is it now? That's why the United States went from one disaster to the next and was a center of ethical and technological backwardness in the 20th century, the Constitution is archaic and completely ill-equipped to deal with modern technological and ethical issues. Just gotta laugh at comments like yours.
Well, we did break the Constitution constantly, like we continue to do so on gun control.
I'm a supporter of gun rights (although not a gun owner), but we aren't following the Second Amendment at all.
It says "a militia". Militia means an irregular fighting force capable of competing on the battlefield against an army. The rebels in Iraq were a militia, for instance. When the Constitution was written this meant a bunch of guys with guns.
Now, with the increasing mechanization of warfare, there are lots of weapons that aren't really that good at self-defense but are excellent cheap tools for militiamen to fight against an army: mines, shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles ("Stingers"), RPG's, mortars, and the like. These are the weapons that Iraqis used against us, after all. If we're really following the Second Amendment, then we ought to support private ownership of these things so ordinary folks can form a militia.
So the argument "We should let people carry guns because that's what the Second Amendment says" is rather bogus; if we were really following the Second Amendment people would have Stingers and RPG's, too.
|
|
|
|