|
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 17 2012 23:56 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 17:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion. I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174 Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests? Just because something comes from the government doesn't mean it's skewed; NCBI is closer to the Library of Congress than it is to some sort of bizarre propaganda wing. And I'm not sure why you expect him to get you access to the full article given the proprietary nature of journals these days. Logging into academic journals is par for the course...do you understand what a public abstract is? Edit: And this is assuming of course that the government has some historic "anti-gun" agenda, which is frankly even more bizarre. The national government isn't run by Michael Moore and has been split 40-60 towards gun rights for a decade with no real sign of shifting. On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Of course, as Franklin implicitly recognized it's much better to get both liberty and safety by becoming an ambassador. Its a statistic. Of course its skewed. Statistics have to be skewed in some way, its very important that you find out how they were calculated. I'm quite aware obviously of what an abstract is. However you also must realize that this does not make for a decent source. Just because someone out there wrote a bunch of pages without explaining themselves very well or explaining how their numbers were arrived at doesn't make things any better. I of course understand all of this but people who don't realize that there is always bias no matter what side are the most dangerous types because they're so head-strong about being wrong (quite literally) and that simply amuses me.
Of course there's bias. But it has nothing to do with it coming from Pubmed, it has to do with the name of publishing agency (which is provided by Pubmed, conveniently enough). Raw statistics are rarely skewed. Statistical analyses, calculations, or models can be, I suppose, as can interpretations, but numbers like "2/3 of house robberies with a gun in the house ended in a fatality" is not really that open to statistical interpretation assuming you searched appropriate data.
Any scientific article with political ramifications should be looked at with skepticism. Everything should be. But you should be especially skeptical of papers that were released in full to the public unless they're from a reputable journal, not the other way around. If someone releases a paper in full online you should assume it's shit and they just want attention/drama unless you read it and discover otherwise.
I mean, the person wrote a legal brief for a gun control institute. I somehow doubt it's just a few pages that they didn't explain well.
|
On December 18 2012 00:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 23:56 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 17:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion. I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174 Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests? Just because something comes from the government doesn't mean it's skewed; NCBI is closer to the Library of Congress than it is to some sort of bizarre propaganda wing. And I'm not sure why you expect him to get you access to the full article given the proprietary nature of journals these days. Logging into academic journals is par for the course...do you understand what a public abstract is? Edit: And this is assuming of course that the government has some historic "anti-gun" agenda, which is frankly even more bizarre. The national government isn't run by Michael Moore and has been split 40-60 towards gun rights for a decade with no real sign of shifting. On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Of course, as Franklin implicitly recognized it's much better to get both liberty and safety by becoming an ambassador. Its a statistic. Of course its skewed. Statistics have to be skewed in some way, its very important that you find out how they were calculated. I'm quite aware obviously of what an abstract is. However you also must realize that this does not make for a decent source. Just because someone out there wrote a bunch of pages without explaining themselves very well or explaining how their numbers were arrived at doesn't make things any better. I of course understand all of this but people who don't realize that there is always bias no matter what side are the most dangerous types because they're so head-strong about being wrong (quite literally) and that simply amuses me. Of course there's bias. But it has nothing to do with it coming from Pubmed, it has to do with the name of publishing agency (which is provided by Pubmed, conveniently enough). Raw statistics are rarely skewed. Statistical analyses, calculations, or models can be, I suppose, as can interpretations, but numbers like "2/3 of house robberies with a gun in the house ended in a fatality" is not really that open to statistical interpretation assuming you searched appropriate data. Any scientific article with political ramifications should be looked at with skepticism. Everything should be. But you should be especially skeptical of papers that were released in full to the public unless they're from a reputable journal, not the other way around. If someone releases a paper in full online you should assume it's shit and they just want attention/drama unless you read it and discover otherwise. I mean, the person wrote a legal brief for a gun control institute. I somehow doubt it's just a few pages that they didn't explain well.
He will question everything that doesn't support his position. When I linked an article from the United Nations regarding gun control his response was:
Your sources are no less biased and even worse, you're completely unaware of where your info comes from.
Worse yet you think the UN is some savior organization and that they're all fact and no agenda. Understand the bias on your own sources and you'll be able to form an actual argument instead of all this silliness.
Yet he linked an article from a Civil Libertarian gun owner, saying it wasn't biased... It is like arguing with someone about the theory of evolution or global warming. You can have a mountain of evidence saying both exist, but they will still deny them.
People can believe whatever they want. Those who choose to submit themselves to the scientific method are the ones who can change positions rationally, and can defend their positions rationally. He cannot defend his positions rationally, so he continues to attack the sources, peer reviewed articles. If he understood the process through which a peer reviewed article is published, and why those are the only kind of sources many colleges allow you to cite in a paper, then he would understand how ignorant and irrational his position is.
The entire idea behind the peer review process is that the paper is criticized, looked at with skepticism, the data is checked, the experiment is repeated ect... These things not only make the argument stronger, it means that people can trust the source. Do people fudge stats? Of course! That is why the methodology is full explained in these kind of papers, so you can repeat the experiment if you question the results. If someone in a college of university were to lie in a peer reviewed paper, their chances of being caught would be high, and if they were caught the professor who published it would lose their job for intellectual dishonestly or the student who lied who be expelled. There is a lot at stake here, this isn't a joke.
This is compared to articles written by people that aren't peer reviewed, which can be full of bias. And there is no consequences for lies.
Comparing the two is ludicrous, and questioning peer reviewed papers as trusted sources is too. Perhaps the articles themselves have issues, and to read them and point them out is one thing, but to the question the validity of the best sources we have is just ignorant. And far more qualified people that him have combed through these articles. The idea that there is some substantial mistake or bias is grasping at straws. Also since the scientific community appears so unified when it comes whether or not guns make people safer, the idea that all the articles have substantial mistakes or bias is ludicrous.
If scholars found out that a government site was hosting flawed and biased scientific articles, heads would roll, and those sites would be discredited. Because there are actually people out there who submit themselves to the scientific method, and they want the truth, and they want their values to reflect the truth. So they will be all for guns if they make people safer, or against guns if they don't. Unfortunately for him, the truth doesn't suit his beliefs, and he doesn't want to change his beliefs.
I'll write a nice piece on all of this later, comparing the arguments in light of the evidence.
|
Unless you need it for personal safety, I see no reason to allow firearms among civilians.
Read: I dont think the American gunlaw is sensible by any means
|
On December 18 2012 00:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 00:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 17 2012 23:56 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 17:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion. I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174 Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests? Just because something comes from the government doesn't mean it's skewed; NCBI is closer to the Library of Congress than it is to some sort of bizarre propaganda wing. And I'm not sure why you expect him to get you access to the full article given the proprietary nature of journals these days. Logging into academic journals is par for the course...do you understand what a public abstract is? Edit: And this is assuming of course that the government has some historic "anti-gun" agenda, which is frankly even more bizarre. The national government isn't run by Michael Moore and has been split 40-60 towards gun rights for a decade with no real sign of shifting. On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Of course, as Franklin implicitly recognized it's much better to get both liberty and safety by becoming an ambassador. Its a statistic. Of course its skewed. Statistics have to be skewed in some way, its very important that you find out how they were calculated. I'm quite aware obviously of what an abstract is. However you also must realize that this does not make for a decent source. Just because someone out there wrote a bunch of pages without explaining themselves very well or explaining how their numbers were arrived at doesn't make things any better. I of course understand all of this but people who don't realize that there is always bias no matter what side are the most dangerous types because they're so head-strong about being wrong (quite literally) and that simply amuses me. Of course there's bias. But it has nothing to do with it coming from Pubmed, it has to do with the name of publishing agency (which is provided by Pubmed, conveniently enough). Raw statistics are rarely skewed. Statistical analyses, calculations, or models can be, I suppose, as can interpretations, but numbers like "2/3 of house robberies with a gun in the house ended in a fatality" is not really that open to statistical interpretation assuming you searched appropriate data. Any scientific article with political ramifications should be looked at with skepticism. Everything should be. But you should be especially skeptical of papers that were released in full to the public unless they're from a reputable journal, not the other way around. If someone releases a paper in full online you should assume it's shit and they just want attention/drama unless you read it and discover otherwise. I mean, the person wrote a legal brief for a gun control institute. I somehow doubt it's just a few pages that they didn't explain well. He will question everything that doesn't support his position. When I linked an article from the United Nations regarding gun control his response was: Show nested quote +Your sources are no less biased and even worse, you're completely unaware of where your info comes from.
Worse yet you think the UN is some savior organization and that they're all fact and no agenda. Understand the bias on your own sources and you'll be able to form an actual argument instead of all this silliness. Yet he linked an article from a Civil Libertarian gun owner, saying it wasn't biased... It is like arguing with someone about the theory of evolution or global warming. You can have a mountain of evidence saying both exist, but they will still deny them.
A mountain of biased evidence does not a case make. Also putting words into my mouth like me claiming that other source was unbiased is outright lying. You can try to claim to be this great researcher all you want, but you're just an extremist to one side just like everybody else who's saying this BS.
You're not "scientific" and you're not knowledgeable. You're an extremist who believes he has all the answers. I'm not for either side, as it would be obvious to someone who reads. Resorting to misquoting and lying only proves my point that your kind are poison.
Let me reiterate my stance so there's no future confusion:
I really do follow the scientific method and at absolute best, the evidence is inconclusive. There's instances where legislation was changed and crime was completely unaffected. There's also studies where Australia and other countries had success with certain measures being taken. However, when those same measures were tried elsewhere, they had little to no effect at all.
My stance is that its INCONCLUSIVE and NEITHER side seems emotionally-detached enough from the issue to look at it all objectively. There's going to be evidence out there that contradicts your stance and its our job as respectable scientific minds to accept ALL evidence and not just that which supports our side in the interests of truth and the progression of knowledge.
|
Here's the minor fact that I think makes most pro-gun types differ from me in opinion: The mere fact that I feel safer owning a guns directly implies that there are people who it would make me feel safer if they didn't possess a gun.
Now, do I think that an attempt to remove the guns would work? Fuck no. Even if I did, I don't think removing all of them is the answer, but that's kind of moot.
What we do need, then, are better enforcement of the restrictions on who can obtain guns, better safety training for any sort of carry, and very harsh laws for gun negligence. In other words, if your teenager gets his mitts on your legal gun and does something illegal with it, you should be an accomplice for any and every charge he receives.
Would it stop everything? No, but then, neither would asking criminals nicely to hand over their guns. Would it help with negligence related incidents? Probably, over a bit of time, as would better enforcement of laws about who can buy them legally.
|
On December 18 2012 00:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
If scholars found out that a government site was hosting flawed and biased scientific articles, heads would roll, and those sites would be discredited.
I dunno about you but I've found plenty of flawed and biased "scientific" articles through Pubmed, especially ones I didn't have to access through the university subscriptions. Half the ones I just cited in the grant proposal I helped submit Friday used poor methodology or drew improper conclusions but got published anyway and are regarded as seminal (though the field is young, I guess). Including one that's apparently "oh so fantastic" from a "great researcher" that included a cited line that referred to another person opinion (that was enumerated as such) as fact.
The reason Pubmed/NCBI is great is because they have *everything*, even the biased and inadequately researched articles. The main reason I was disagreeing with him is that they're an inclusive entity a la Library of Congress rather than some propaganda wing of the U.S. Government and his assertion that the U.S. Government has had some systematic agenda of removing pro-gun rights articles from the site.
|
On December 18 2012 01:54 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 00:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 18 2012 00:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 17 2012 23:56 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 17:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion. I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174 Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests? Just because something comes from the government doesn't mean it's skewed; NCBI is closer to the Library of Congress than it is to some sort of bizarre propaganda wing. And I'm not sure why you expect him to get you access to the full article given the proprietary nature of journals these days. Logging into academic journals is par for the course...do you understand what a public abstract is? Edit: And this is assuming of course that the government has some historic "anti-gun" agenda, which is frankly even more bizarre. The national government isn't run by Michael Moore and has been split 40-60 towards gun rights for a decade with no real sign of shifting. On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Of course, as Franklin implicitly recognized it's much better to get both liberty and safety by becoming an ambassador. Its a statistic. Of course its skewed. Statistics have to be skewed in some way, its very important that you find out how they were calculated. I'm quite aware obviously of what an abstract is. However you also must realize that this does not make for a decent source. Just because someone out there wrote a bunch of pages without explaining themselves very well or explaining how their numbers were arrived at doesn't make things any better. I of course understand all of this but people who don't realize that there is always bias no matter what side are the most dangerous types because they're so head-strong about being wrong (quite literally) and that simply amuses me. Of course there's bias. But it has nothing to do with it coming from Pubmed, it has to do with the name of publishing agency (which is provided by Pubmed, conveniently enough). Raw statistics are rarely skewed. Statistical analyses, calculations, or models can be, I suppose, as can interpretations, but numbers like "2/3 of house robberies with a gun in the house ended in a fatality" is not really that open to statistical interpretation assuming you searched appropriate data. Any scientific article with political ramifications should be looked at with skepticism. Everything should be. But you should be especially skeptical of papers that were released in full to the public unless they're from a reputable journal, not the other way around. If someone releases a paper in full online you should assume it's shit and they just want attention/drama unless you read it and discover otherwise. I mean, the person wrote a legal brief for a gun control institute. I somehow doubt it's just a few pages that they didn't explain well. He will question everything that doesn't support his position. When I linked an article from the United Nations regarding gun control his response was: Your sources are no less biased and even worse, you're completely unaware of where your info comes from.
Worse yet you think the UN is some savior organization and that they're all fact and no agenda. Understand the bias on your own sources and you'll be able to form an actual argument instead of all this silliness. Yet he linked an article from a Civil Libertarian gun owner, saying it wasn't biased... It is like arguing with someone about the theory of evolution or global warming. You can have a mountain of evidence saying both exist, but they will still deny them. A mountain of biased evidence does not a case make. Also putting words into my mouth like me claiming that other source was unbiased is outright lying. You can try to claim to be this great researcher all you want, but you're just an extremist to one side just like everybody else who's saying this BS. You're not "scientific" and you're not knowledgeable. You're an extremist who believes he has all the answers. I'm not for either side, as it would be obvious to someone who reads. Resorting to misquoting and lying only proves my point that your kind are poison.
You're such a hypocrite. It's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you're strongly pro-gun. I remember you linking stuff like that 'Gun Facts' site that's about as academic as a wikipedia run by the NRA, whilst saying everyone else can't research worth a damn. Actually, a mountain of peer-reviewed papers published by reputable journals/universities does make a case. I agree that a mountain of biased evidence (e.g. the 150 page 'Gun Facts') does not. How about you show off your research skills by linking some hard evidence that's actually credible, not some gun nut selectively cherry-picking their statistics, I won't hold my breath.
|
As annoying as it is to jump in randomly while discourse is being had; I find that while owning a gun for no reason is somewhat strange, I could conceive of guns not being the only issue. As seen in the recent event in China (similarly timed and in nature), if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they will figure out a way to do so. Now, guns do in fact make this easier (slashing a bunch of adults would present a more difficult obstacle than just shooting them) but I don't believe guns are the ONLY issue that need be looked at if safety is to be apparent. Just my 2 cents.
|
On December 18 2012 02:00 JingleHell wrote:
Here's the minor fact that I think makes most pro-gun types differ from me in opinion: The mere fact that I feel safer owning a guns directly implies that there are people who it would make me feel safer if they didn't possess a gun.
Now, do I think that an attempt to remove the guns would work? Fuck no. Even if I did, I don't think removing all of them is the answer, but that's kind of moot.
What we do need, then, are better enforcement of the restrictions on who can obtain guns, better safety training for any sort of carry, and very harsh laws for gun negligence. In other words, if your teenager gets his mitts on your legal gun and does something illegal with it, you should be an accomplice for any and every charge he receives.
Would it stop everything? No, but then, neither would asking criminals nicely to hand over their guns. Would it help with negligence related incidents? Probably, over a bit of time, as would better enforcement of laws about who can buy them legally.
Even though we disagreed earlier, I think you're following more of the lines we need to follow. Moderation instead of complete restriction. Its kinda like drinking if you think about it that way. Too much or too little of anything isn't so good.
I think the gun show thing definitely needs to be changed though since I actually went to one just to confirm that you can in fact buy anything there with no checks, no ID, no waiting period, NOTHING.
The problem is going to be reaching an agreement where the line should be drawn. Should 3-round burst with an lengthened recoil timing be the line instead of fully automatic? What happens if the legislation fails to produce a result? Will the freedom be restored to its original state or will more be asked to be taken until cumulatively, we have nothing left?
Its these kinds of questions both sides are probably asking themselves and neither side is calmed down enough to talk to the other side objectively. Also, money is definitely pulling the strings behind a lot of these problems and we're just letting google and Libor (with all big banks) slip through. As long as guys like that stand to make a penny off any of this (they might even make more just by keeping the feud going) in the arms industry or the organizations that exist to remove arms, we will never see an end to this.
Some guy wrote: You're such a hypocrite. It's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you're strongly pro-gun. I remember you linking stuff like that 'Gun Facts' site that's about as academic as a wikipedia run by the NRA, whilst saying everyone else can't research worth a damn. Actually, a mountain of peer-reviewed papers published by reputable journals/universities does make a case. How about you show off your research skills by linking some hard evidence that's actually credible, not some gun nut selectively cherry-picking their statistics, I won't hold my breath.
I linked that gun facts sheet saying it was a reciprocate of the evidence being shown by the other side. Its obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you don't possess the reading comprehension or the reasoning skills necessary to be part of any respectable discussion. How about you people from either side link some decent sources that really end this? Why not? Oh let me answer that for you to save you the time since I'm literally that far ahead already. Its inconclusive at best. If it were possible to end this all right now, it would've happened already.
People like you who are so extreme to one side will never even see their own flaws. People with attitudes like yours are why the Patriot Act got through and any country where legislation is rushed without thinking and extreme change happens practically all the time through "disregarding the politics" is far worse.
|
1019 Posts
What annoys me about gun proponents is that they commonly assume that gun control advocates want a total ban on guns. What the fuck? No. Why are gun proponents so absolute in their thinking? Thats the problem with most of the hardliners in the US. The country needs stronger and better gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns. The 2007 VT shooter and the elementary school shooter both had mental problems and were still able to get guns, when they shouldn't have been allowed to. If that doesn't show something is wrong with the system, I don't know what is.
You guys need to stop arguing over the semantics of statistics and research papers because you guys will never change your views even if you read 100 neutral papers that offer powerful arguments against your line of thinking. Go back to the basic facts. The US has 10,000 gun-related deaths per year. Other industrialized countries have them in the hundreds. The US also has the biggest gun culture and most number of guns per person. There is definitely a relation between the two. The correlation/causation argument is a really convenient one-liner to this, but to just repeat that argument every time and deny the problem that we have and say that this is purely coincidental is a denial of reality. It just makes you an extremist. The US has way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings each year. For gun supporters to continue to deny that something is wrong is the reason why people will continue suffer from the excess of guns.
|
On December 18 2012 02:21 white_horse wrote:
What annoys me about gun proponents is that they commonly assume that gun control advocates want a total ban on guns. What the fuck? No. Why are gun proponents so absolute in their thinking? Thats the problem with most of the hardliners in the US. The country needs stronger and better gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns. The 2007 VT shooter and the elementary school shooter both had mental problems and were still able to get guns, when they shouldn't have been allowed to. If that doesn't show something is wrong with the system, I don't know what is.
The US has 10,000 gun-related deaths per year. Other industrialized countries have them in the hundreds. The US also has the biggest gun culture and most number of guns per person. There is definitely a relation between the two. The correlation/causation argument is a really convenient one-liner to this, but to deny everything and say that this is purely coincidental is a denial of reality. It just makes you an extremist. The US has way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings each year. For gun supporters to continue to deny that something is wrong is the reason why people will continue suffer from the excess of guns.
What annoys me about gun control proponents is that they commonly assume that gun advocates want zero restrictions on deadly weapons. What the fuck? No. Why are gun control proponents so absolute in their thinking?
Etc. Your rant can turn around. Let's avoid blanket statements that ignore the realities. There's absolutist whackjobs on both sides.
Most people I know who own guns don't have any problem with sane restrictions on gun ownership, the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems.
|
1019 Posts
On December 18 2012 02:27 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 02:21 white_horse wrote:
What annoys me about gun proponents is that they commonly assume that gun control advocates want a total ban on guns. What the fuck? No. Why are gun proponents so absolute in their thinking? Thats the problem with most of the hardliners in the US. The country needs stronger and better gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns. The 2007 VT shooter and the elementary school shooter both had mental problems and were still able to get guns, when they shouldn't have been allowed to. If that doesn't show something is wrong with the system, I don't know what is.
The US has 10,000 gun-related deaths per year. Other industrialized countries have them in the hundreds. The US also has the biggest gun culture and most number of guns per person. There is definitely a relation between the two. The correlation/causation argument is a really convenient one-liner to this, but to deny everything and say that this is purely coincidental is a denial of reality. It just makes you an extremist. The US has way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings each year. For gun supporters to continue to deny that something is wrong is the reason why people will continue suffer from the excess of guns.
What annoys me about gun control proponents is that they commonly assume that gun advocates want zero restrictions on deadly weapons. What the fuck? No. Why are gun control proponents so absolute in their thinking? Etc. Your rant can turn around. Let's avoid blanket statements that ignore the realities. There's absolutist whackjobs on both sides. Most people I know who own guns don't have any problem with sane restrictions on gun ownership, the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems.
Uh, no. You are wrong. I don't see a hippie version or public movement equivalent to the NRA thats screaming for a total ban on guns. Most of the far-left that want a total ban on all guns comprise a small minority of the public. We have a huge gun lobby along with an unhealthy culture of guns in our country on the other hand.
+ Show Spoiler +the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems.
Because the NRA prevents lawmakers from doing anything meaningful. The ball has always been the court of gun advocates. If someone were to introduce a bill limiting assault rifles, all the NRA has to say is "the evil gubment wants to take all your guns away" and the ensuing outcry from gun proponents prevents anything from getting done. Yes, a bill that restricts assault rifles somehow means that our 2nd amendment right is being encroached upon. If thats not extreme, what is?
|
Let's get those teachers/administrators packing heat so any lone gunman cannot be reasonably sure that his targets are defenseless. Well, I can dream.
Back in reality, Obama has a quick chance to push through stringent gun control laws when the opposition is still somewhat cowering. I bet he'd get enough sympathizers in the House with two more stump speeches on the topic.
|
On December 18 2012 02:30 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 02:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 18 2012 02:21 white_horse wrote:
What annoys me about gun proponents is that they commonly assume that gun control advocates want a total ban on guns. What the fuck? No. Why are gun proponents so absolute in their thinking? Thats the problem with most of the hardliners in the US. The country needs stronger and better gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns. The 2007 VT shooter and the elementary school shooter both had mental problems and were still able to get guns, when they shouldn't have been allowed to. If that doesn't show something is wrong with the system, I don't know what is.
The US has 10,000 gun-related deaths per year. Other industrialized countries have them in the hundreds. The US also has the biggest gun culture and most number of guns per person. There is definitely a relation between the two. The correlation/causation argument is a really convenient one-liner to this, but to deny everything and say that this is purely coincidental is a denial of reality. It just makes you an extremist. The US has way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings each year. For gun supporters to continue to deny that something is wrong is the reason why people will continue suffer from the excess of guns.
What annoys me about gun control proponents is that they commonly assume that gun advocates want zero restrictions on deadly weapons. What the fuck? No. Why are gun control proponents so absolute in their thinking? Etc. Your rant can turn around. Let's avoid blanket statements that ignore the realities. There's absolutist whackjobs on both sides. Most people I know who own guns don't have any problem with sane restrictions on gun ownership, the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems. Uh no. I don't see a hippie version equivalent to the NRA thats screaming for a total ban on guns. + Show Spoiler +the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems. Because the NRA prevents lawmakers from doing anything meaningful. The ball has always been the court of gun advocates. Nothing ever happens from their side because they are too scared to stop clutching at the second amendment.
The lack of a distinct anti-gun lobby somehow means there's no people advocating a total ban? You've been in this thread enough that I'd assume you'd have managed to read one or two responses. There are, in fact, people who'd love to see it.
Fact: I've said it countless times, the gun lobby types are some of the last people on the planet I'd want to see armed. But frankly, most of the stuff that gets introduced, passed or not, is either fairly absolutist, or a joke. Total carry bans, banning rifles that "look evil". Restrictions that make guns inaccessible in emergencies. Restrictions on magazine size. (If you want an effective restriction on magazines for semi-automatic rifles, restrict the TYPE of magazine, not the size.)
|
On December 18 2012 02:17 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote + Some guy wrote: You're such a hypocrite. It's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you're strongly pro-gun. I remember you linking stuff like that 'Gun Facts' site that's about as academic as a wikipedia run by the NRA, whilst saying everyone else can't research worth a damn. Actually, a mountain of peer-reviewed papers published by reputable journals/universities does make a case. How about you show off your research skills by linking some hard evidence that's actually credible, not some gun nut selectively cherry-picking their statistics, I won't hold my breath. I linked that gun facts sheet saying it was a reciprocate of the evidence being shown by the other side. Its obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you don't possess the reading comprehension or the reasoning skills necessary to be part of any respectable discussion. How about you people from either side link some decent sources that really end this? Why not? Oh let me answer that for you to save you the time since I'm literally that far ahead already. Its inconclusive at best. If it were possible to end this all right now, it would've happened already. People like you who are so extreme to one side will never even see their own flaws. People with attitudes like yours are why the Patriot Act got through and any country where legislation is rushed without thinking and extreme change happens practically all the time through "disregarding the politics" is far worse.
Yeah because Australia rushed through gun-laws after Port Arthur and that turned out so badly. I'd like to hear of an example where it went in reverse. It's just hilarious how aggressively you try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you. Insulting my reading comprehension's pretty hilarious, and the reasoning. The issue is only inconclusive at best if you are incapable of discerning peer-reviewed evidence from gun lobby propaganda. Reduce the amount of guns in a society and you'll reduce homocides. It's really that simple and anyone who calls the the correlations between the US, gun deaths and homocide rates relative to the rest of the developed world 'inconclusive' just has their head in the sand. You're forcing a false duality on an argument that ended years ago outside the states. The rest of the industrialised world is way ahead of you.
I really don't see how I'm that extreme. Guns are much less detrimental if they're regulated. Use them for hunting or whatever. Just don't have high-powered militaryesque weapons available to the public and cut down on the automatics at least.
Comparing calls for stricter gun laws to the Patriot act is just full blown retarded. The Patriot act was pushed through on the basis of irrational fears and ignorance. The exact same forces that are holding the government back from doing something about guns. It's hardly being rushed through and it's not a knee-jerk reaction. It's been year after year of unnecessary gun deaths in the US with nothing being done to reduce the number of guns or police those who own them.
|
1019 Posts
On December 18 2012 02:40 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 02:30 white_horse wrote:On December 18 2012 02:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 18 2012 02:21 white_horse wrote:
What annoys me about gun proponents is that they commonly assume that gun control advocates want a total ban on guns. What the fuck? No. Why are gun proponents so absolute in their thinking? Thats the problem with most of the hardliners in the US. The country needs stronger and better gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns. The 2007 VT shooter and the elementary school shooter both had mental problems and were still able to get guns, when they shouldn't have been allowed to. If that doesn't show something is wrong with the system, I don't know what is.
The US has 10,000 gun-related deaths per year. Other industrialized countries have them in the hundreds. The US also has the biggest gun culture and most number of guns per person. There is definitely a relation between the two. The correlation/causation argument is a really convenient one-liner to this, but to deny everything and say that this is purely coincidental is a denial of reality. It just makes you an extremist. The US has way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings each year. For gun supporters to continue to deny that something is wrong is the reason why people will continue suffer from the excess of guns.
What annoys me about gun control proponents is that they commonly assume that gun advocates want zero restrictions on deadly weapons. What the fuck? No. Why are gun control proponents so absolute in their thinking? Etc. Your rant can turn around. Let's avoid blanket statements that ignore the realities. There's absolutist whackjobs on both sides. Most people I know who own guns don't have any problem with sane restrictions on gun ownership, the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems. Uh no. I don't see a hippie version equivalent to the NRA thats screaming for a total ban on guns. + Show Spoiler +the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems. Because the NRA prevents lawmakers from doing anything meaningful. The ball has always been the court of gun advocates. Nothing ever happens from their side because they are too scared to stop clutching at the second amendment. The lack of a distinct anti-gun lobby somehow means there's no people advocating a total ban? You've been in this thread enough that I'd assume you'd have managed to read one or two responses. There are, in fact, people who'd love to see it. Fact: I've said it countless times, the gun lobby types are some of the last people on the planet I'd want to see armed. But frankly, most of the stuff that gets introduced, passed or not, is either fairly absolutist, or a joke. Total carry bans, banning rifles that "look evil". Restrictions that make guns inaccessible in emergencies. Restrictions on magazine size. (If you want an effective restriction on magazines for semi-automatic rifles, restrict the TYPE of magazine, not the size.)
Did I ever say that there are "no people advocating a total ban"? Read what I wrote. They are a fringe group. The gun lobby, on the other hand, is a powerful political force.
Those gun regulation ideas are details left to lawmakers. The problem isn't in the details of what would go into a bill. The problem is the gun lobby's resistance is every.fucking.idea. that goes through congress, whether the idea is reasonable or not. Most congressmen aren't interested in "taking away your guns" as the NRA likes to say in every statement to its members, but gun advocates antagonize every single lawmaker who tries to do something about the gun problem. That implies the gun lobby refuses to acknowledge that we have a problem with the way guns are handled. That implies the gun lobby aren't interested in compromise. If this isn't extremism, what is? If people were open to moderation, a bill would have already passed a long time ago.
I personally think that you can exercise your darling 2nd amendment without assault rifles. Handguns and shotguns or hunting rifles are good enough to do what gun supporters want to do with their guns (home defense, personal defense, hunting, personal recreation, etc). But what will republicans and the gun lobby say if someone wants to limit assault rifles? We already know the answer.
|
On December 18 2012 02:42 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 02:17 sCCrooked wrote: Some guy wrote: You're such a hypocrite. It's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you're strongly pro-gun. I remember you linking stuff like that 'Gun Facts' site that's about as academic as a wikipedia run by the NRA, whilst saying everyone else can't research worth a damn. Actually, a mountain of peer-reviewed papers published by reputable journals/universities does make a case. How about you show off your research skills by linking some hard evidence that's actually credible, not some gun nut selectively cherry-picking their statistics, I won't hold my breath. I linked that gun facts sheet saying it was a reciprocate of the evidence being shown by the other side. Its obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you don't possess the reading comprehension or the reasoning skills necessary to be part of any respectable discussion. How about you people from either side link some decent sources that really end this? Why not? Oh let me answer that for you to save you the time since I'm literally that far ahead already. Its inconclusive at best. If it were possible to end this all right now, it would've happened already. People like you who are so extreme to one side will never even see their own flaws. People with attitudes like yours are why the Patriot Act got through and any country where legislation is rushed without thinking and extreme change happens practically all the time through "disregarding the politics" is far worse. Yeah because Australia rushed through gun-laws after Port Arthur and that turned out so badly. I'd like to hear of an example where it went in reverse. It's just hilarious how aggressively you try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you. Insulting my reading comprehension's pretty hilarious, and the reasoning. The issue is only inconclusive at best if you are incapable of discerning peer-reviewed evidence from gun lobby propaganda. Reduce the amount of guns in a society and you'll reduce homocides. It's really that simple and anyone who calls the the correlations between the US, gun deaths and homocide rates relative to the rest of the developed world 'inconclusive' just has their head in the sand. You're forcing a false duality on an argument that ended years ago outside the states. The rest of the industrialised world is way ahead of you. I really don't see how I'm that extreme. Guns are much less detrimental if they're regulated. Use them for hunting or whatever. Just don't have high-powered militaryesque weapons available to the public and cut down on the automatics at least. Comparing calls for stricter gun laws to the Patriot act is just full blown retarded. The Patriot act was pushed through on the basis of irrational fears and ignorance. The exact same forces that are holding the government back from doing something about guns. It's hardly being rushed through and it's not a knee-jerk reaction. It's been year after year of unnecessary gun deaths in the US with nothing being done to reduce the number of guns or police those who own them.
It's really ignorant to compare Australia to America in this topic for plenty of reasons.
|
On December 18 2012 02:50 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 02:40 JingleHell wrote:On December 18 2012 02:30 white_horse wrote:On December 18 2012 02:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 18 2012 02:21 white_horse wrote:
What annoys me about gun proponents is that they commonly assume that gun control advocates want a total ban on guns. What the fuck? No. Why are gun proponents so absolute in their thinking? Thats the problem with most of the hardliners in the US. The country needs stronger and better gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns. The 2007 VT shooter and the elementary school shooter both had mental problems and were still able to get guns, when they shouldn't have been allowed to. If that doesn't show something is wrong with the system, I don't know what is.
The US has 10,000 gun-related deaths per year. Other industrialized countries have them in the hundreds. The US also has the biggest gun culture and most number of guns per person. There is definitely a relation between the two. The correlation/causation argument is a really convenient one-liner to this, but to deny everything and say that this is purely coincidental is a denial of reality. It just makes you an extremist. The US has way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings each year. For gun supporters to continue to deny that something is wrong is the reason why people will continue suffer from the excess of guns.
What annoys me about gun control proponents is that they commonly assume that gun advocates want zero restrictions on deadly weapons. What the fuck? No. Why are gun control proponents so absolute in their thinking? Etc. Your rant can turn around. Let's avoid blanket statements that ignore the realities. There's absolutist whackjobs on both sides. Most people I know who own guns don't have any problem with sane restrictions on gun ownership, the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems. Uh no. I don't see a hippie version equivalent to the NRA thats screaming for a total ban on guns. + Show Spoiler +the problem is that most gun control legislation that gets introduced is token shit that wouldn't fix the actual problems. Because the NRA prevents lawmakers from doing anything meaningful. The ball has always been the court of gun advocates. Nothing ever happens from their side because they are too scared to stop clutching at the second amendment. The lack of a distinct anti-gun lobby somehow means there's no people advocating a total ban? You've been in this thread enough that I'd assume you'd have managed to read one or two responses. There are, in fact, people who'd love to see it. Fact: I've said it countless times, the gun lobby types are some of the last people on the planet I'd want to see armed. But frankly, most of the stuff that gets introduced, passed or not, is either fairly absolutist, or a joke. Total carry bans, banning rifles that "look evil". Restrictions that make guns inaccessible in emergencies. Restrictions on magazine size. (If you want an effective restriction on magazines for semi-automatic rifles, restrict the TYPE of magazine, not the size.) Did I ever say that there are "no people advocating a total ban"? Read what I wrote. They are a fringe group. The gun lobby, on the other hand, is a powerful political force.
If you'd said originally "The gun lobby" instead of "gun proponents" we wouldn't be arguing this point. I'd qualify as a gun proponent, because I'm not against guns, just poor gun laws. Moderate or not, I'm a gun proponent. And since my original response to that part of it was very much directed against blanket statements, my point stands.
Those gun regulation ideas are details left to lawmakers. The problem isn't in the details of what would go into a bill. The problem is the gun lobby's resistance is every.fucking.idea. that goes through congress, whether the idea is reasonable or not. Most congressmen aren't interested in "taking away your guns" as the NRA likes to say in every statement to its members, but gun advocates antagonize every single lawmaker who tries to do something about the gun problem. That implies the gun lobby refuses to acknowledge that we have a problem with the way guns are handled. That implies the gun lobby aren't interested in compromise. If this isn't extremism, what is? If people were open to moderation, a bill would have already passed a long time ago.
Sure, it would help if the legislators had more education on the matter. Of course, if they wanted it, they could probably get it, I'd bet some branch of law enforcement would happily sit down with them and give them a week long crash course to help them understand better what they're trying to do.
Much as I despise the NRA politically, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't their job to educate the lawmakers (who probably wouldn't trust them anyways), and if the lawmakers wanted to be making good decisions, it wouldn't be hard for them to get educated on the matters.
The gun lobby does have a problem, but making a blanket statement against absolutism in a single side of a highly polarized political thing is a joke, which is what I originally pointed to.
On December 18 2012 02:50 white_horse wrote:
I personally think that you can exercise your darling 2nd amendment without assault rifles. Handguns and shotguns or hunting rifles are good enough to do what gun supporters want to do with their guns (home defense, personal defense, hunting, personal recreation, etc). But what will republicans and the gun lobby say if someone wants to limit assault rifles? We already know the answer.
I think what you're thinking of as assault rifles, and assault rifles, might be two different things. I agree, civilians don't need assault rifles. But then, an SKS or an AR15 aren't, in fact, assault rifles. Functionally, I'd love to know if you can tell me significant difference between a semi-automatic "hunting rifle" and an AR-15. If you're just talking looks, meh, and if you're talking about features like a pistol grip, a foregrip, various types of sights, lights, or whatever, you're talking about things that actually do have a function, and to say people don't have a use for function is, at least very arbitrary.
|
1019 Posts
On December 18 2012 03:00 JingleHell wrote:
The gun lobby does have a problem, but making a blanket statement against absolutism in a single side of a highly polarized political thing is a joke, which is what I originally pointed to.
Just don't deny that the NRA and other gun proponents pursue attitudes and gun policies that border on the extreme. If ideas like stricter assault weapon ownership, longer waiting time to buy guns, or better ways to identify those who shouldn't have guns continue to be ideas that are "products of the evil liberals" and "giant violations" of the 2nd amendment, then what is "reasonable" to them? Is there such an idea? Or do they just want more guns? As long as the gun lobby continues with what they have been for the past several decades, nothing will change, just acknowledge that.
+ Show Spoiler +Functionally, I'd love to know if you can tell me significant difference between a semi-automatic "hunting rifle" and an AR-15.
If I looked it up on google, I would know. Civilians don't need bushmasters to kill a robber, thats a fact. Theres hundreds of handguns that can do the job just as effectively.
|
On December 18 2012 03:07 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 03:00 JingleHell wrote:
The gun lobby does have a problem, but making a blanket statement against absolutism in a single side of a highly polarized political thing is a joke, which is what I originally pointed to. Just don't deny that the NRA and other gun proponents pursue attitudes and gun policies that border on the extreme. If ideas like stricter assault weapon ownership, longer waiting time to buy guns, or better ways to identify those who shouldn't have guns continue to be ideas that are "products of the evil liberals" and "giant violations" of the 2nd amendment, then what is "reasonable" to them? Is there such an idea? Or do they just want more guns? As long as the gun lobby continues with what they have been for the past several decades, nothing will change, just acknowledge that.
You're literally attacking the wrong person here. Check my posts throughout this thread, and see where I've suggested anything but loathing for the gun lobby. The closest was probably when I linked their list of "armed citizen" stories.
On December 18 2012 03:07 white_horse wrote:
If I looked it up on google, I would know. Civilians don't need bushmasters to kill a robber, thats a fact. Theres hundreds of handguns that can do the job just as effectively.
This same attitude is why the legislators come up with completely absurd shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
