|
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 18 2012 10:29 Consummate wrote:
There should be no gun control, there is no problem. From my experiences in USA, if you're a criminal, you have easy access to illegal weaponry. It's as simple as changing your status to "criminal", and then illegal firearm offers from underground dealers will be getting thrown at you from every direction. For example, I changed my status to criminal and walked into an alley, I was surprised to see gun dealers offering me military grade rifles, grenades, explosives and machine guns.
More guns equate to less crime, it's statistically proven if you look at no relevant statistics. To prove how ineffective gun control is, look at the states with strict gun laws. They still have a lot of violent crime, albeit statistically they're proven to have the least gun violence and the states with lax gun control have statistically the most gun violence - it doesn't matter because there is violence! An apt observant may make a logical argument that it's simple to move to a different state and obtain firearms legally there, and travel back to the state with strict gun laws, well to that argument, I rebut with: Ha! I am better than you!
Lets also look at other things that kill you, did you know tobacco kills millions while firearms only kill people in the tens of thousands? Point proven! We need a war against tobacco! Some guy the other day pointed out that you can't kill someone with tobacco, and oh my, what a dumb argument to make! I've personally seen a shop held up by a lit cigarette, and I've witnessed several brutal gang murders by cigarette too.
Now that my beast has been unleashed, I will now point out the killing argument to any form of gun control. Lets talk about the war on drugs. Look at just how effective the war on drugs are! The Government spends millions of dollars and I still see people buying drugs, it just shows that if something is illegal, it is still obtainable! I've heard someone say that while its illegal, it still makes it more difficult to obtain for the average person, and that not all people can get drugs no matter how badly they want it. But they're liars! Everyone can get drugs! Just change your status to "drug user" and drug dealers will flock to you!
Secondly, distributing guns and drugs are exactly the same! You don't need to get fancy with all that "price disparity", "ammunition as a complementary good", "gun control increases prices even further" and "drugs can be home made easily while guns can't" talk! Just trust me! All those people that talk about that fancy stuff are wrong, because I don't understand it!
If that argument didn't change your stance on gun control, this smoking gun will! Lets look at Mexico. Yes, only Mexico. Disregard other countries that have strict gun control where it's successful, we are only going to focus on Mexico because it supports our argument. Those Mexicans get all their U.S military grade firearms from buying it down in the store! See how easy it is to get weapons? There is no illegal smuggling or corrupt officials selling them these firearms, they get their military grade weapons from buying it in a store that the store produced themselves! And look at how much these Mexicans kill people! You would have heard about it!
Don't fall for someone saying that their country successfully implemented gun control, their country's situation is completely different to ours! If they bring out statistics that refute our argument, point out that we have more maniacs than them for some reason that no one can rationally explain, which makes it more sensible for firearms to be easily available. Otherwise look up statistics like the fact they have more crime than us, which um, I am not sure where this goes because less people are being killed, but take that!
As we all know, guns = freedom. Without weapons, we have no freedom. America is the best country in the world for its freedom! Someone told me that countries with strict gun control have freedom as well, but that isn't true freedom! I just looked at the very credible source wikipedia for the rationale for the Second Amendment:
- Deterring undemocratic government;
- Repelling invasion;
- Suppressing insurrection;
- Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- Participating in law enforcement;
- Enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Disregard that 3 of those reasons contradict each other and that another reason is covered by a public service, while another reason has statistically proven to increase crime and violence - the rationale for the second amendment is bulletproof and has been the legislation that has safeguarded our nation for many years.
So take that haters! Gun control is dumb!
This guy has it right. Gun control ninnies, read this post and weep!
|
On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous?
The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now.
I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States.
What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment.
Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one.
And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article.
|
On December 18 2012 10:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:38 crbox wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In all seriousness though, since the Connecticut shooting, there's been a lot of debate on the subject. I'm hearing all sort of nonsense like the teachers should have guns too to defend themselves and the kids... What if the teacher goes mad and start shooting kids himself? The best solution would be to prohibit guns, but Americans are not ready to give up on their "Right to defend themselves" (the right to carry a gun basically) Ah good, finally, someone figured out the solution... let's prohibit guns. Problem solved! You do realize the issue is more complex than that, right? This has been covered many times in this thread by people of almost all viewpoints.
I didn't say I got the solution,
neither did I say I thought the issue was that simple.
Sorry for expressing my opinion, but this would obviously make these kind of dramas harder to execute if you have trouble finding weaponry.
I find your arrogance kind of misplaced when I'm expressing a valid opinion. Of course the issue is not that simple, people could get guns by other ways, but it doesn't make it less viable to prohibit guns e.e
|
On December 18 2012 10:45 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation. No reason does not dictate that you shouldn't only have one gun... I have 4 a .22 for target shooting/plinking, a 30-06 and a shotgun and an SKS. The 22 costs next to nothing to shoot like a penny per round but I can't hunt with it. Anything shot with a .22 would more than likely not die unless it was a squirrel or something. My 30-06 is for hunting deer Ypu are required by law to use a large bullet for buying and ethically shooting a deer with a large hollow point minimizes suffering as much as possible. It also costs like $2 per 30-06 round. My SKS/Shotgun are for fun. Semi auto and blowing away frozen turkeys and shit with a huge deer slug is hilarious. Guns are fucking tools you need to use the right tool for the job... Having one gun pretty much limits your shooting to one thing.
The Lanza mother had 4 handguns. Are telling me that that it's reasonable for one woman to be packing so much heat?
I understand the difference between styles of weapon and agree that 'guns are fucking tools,' I spent time on my family farm, and own a shotty for wasting possums but rural life necessitates the use of weapons as tools. In other contexts reason dictates that it isn't necessary, as in my example.
Edit: It sounds like you only use 2 of your 4 guns as tools. The SKS and shotty seem to provide you more with entertainment. You seem like a reasonable guy, but what if a mentally unstable individual got their kicks out of sinking a solid slug into a person rather than a frozen turkey. As such with most subjective reasoning, the premise is purely contextual.
|
On December 18 2012 10:48 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:34 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation. Harvard, one of the most reliably liberal bastions the left has, has a study coming out against gun control. Along with almost everyone else on the subject. And it's still not good enough Why don't you just come out and say you'll never agree with reality unless its bias favors yours. No need to get snarky. Why is it that gun control seems to be working fine in most other developed countries? What is it about America that makes it so exceptional?
I will use the U.K. as an example since they banned handguns in 1997. The U.K. doesn't have 300 million firearms. What do you propose, the forceful confiscation of 300 million firearms? How well do you think that will go? By the way, the handgun ban in the U.K., well here you go: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm)
Also, you haven't responded to my China example or my reasoning that it unnecessary to own more guns than you could possible use. So please debate my assertions but don't accuse me of bias, there is no need to get personal.
I'm trying my best to debate your assertions. I must say it gets old after arguing with people who don't seem to completely wrap their head around the facts of this debate, instead just using their own opinions as opposed to facts. But whatever.
So what about your China example? Knives are less deadly than guns. You're saying if the U.S. had a ban it wouldn't have been as deadly? That is most likely the case because knives are less dangerous than guns. But this goes back to square 1, are you fixing on banning the right to own guns for all Americans and confiscate all 300 million weapons?
Finally, over the military/militant definition I use. Sure recreational use of firearms is reasonable and justified. The reason that I make the distinction that many Americans rationalize their procurement of guns based on their 2nd amendment rights. Their right to bare arms against goverment and establish MILITIAS (organized armed groups outside of government control). If the case for gun ownership is as cut and dry as you have argued then people would be pointing to the Harvard study, rather than some relic of the past in your constitution.
You're right, it is cut and dry. The part of the reason is the people who advocate for gun rights and responsibility either don't give the subject due diligence themselves when put on TV, or I would argue that it's mainly because the networks choose to put on people who utterly suck at arguing the issue because they want to paint them red. I was watching Piers Morgan the other night, and the guns rights guy he brought on was this hideous guy who couldn't argue any points effectively at all. What you had instead was Piers Morgan completely yelling over the guy, telling him how ignorant he was, giving him no time to talk, then going to commercial. It was insane. It's the same in a lot of networks.
What I want is a return to level-headedness, a respect for people out there who have done the studies, who research this stuff as their career, who know about firearm laws, and a respect for facts.
|
On December 18 2012 10:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:
[quote]
I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous? The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now. I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States. What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment. Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one. And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article.
To quote the article: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive."
Thank you for at least taking the due diligence to read it. That much is all any one can ask for.
You brought up automatic weapons. Let's just say they're as good as banned, and only 20-50,000 dollars and an extensive 8 week check by the ATF will land you one.
|
On December 18 2012 10:51 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:45 tokicheese wrote:On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation. No reason does not dictate that you shouldn't only have one gun... I have 4 a .22 for target shooting/plinking, a 30-06 and a shotgun and an SKS. The 22 costs next to nothing to shoot like a penny per round but I can't hunt with it. Anything shot with a .22 would more than likely not die unless it was a squirrel or something. My 30-06 is for hunting deer Ypu are required by law to use a large bullet for buying and ethically shooting a deer with a large hollow point minimizes suffering as much as possible. It also costs like $2 per 30-06 round. My SKS/Shotgun are for fun. Semi auto and blowing away frozen turkeys and shit with a huge deer slug is hilarious. Guns are fucking tools you need to use the right tool for the job... Having one gun pretty much limits your shooting to one thing. The Lanza mother had 4 handguns. Are telling me that that it's reasonable for one woman to be packing so much heat? I understand the difference between styles of weapon and agree that 'guns are fucking tools,' I spent time on my family farm, and own a shotty for wasting possums but rural life necessitates the use of weapons as tools. In other contexts reason dictates that it isn't necessary, as in my example. Edit: It sounds like you only use 2 of your 4 guns as tools. The SKS and shotty seem to provide you more with entertainment. You seem like a reasonable guy, but what if a mentally unstable individual got their kicks out of sinking a solid slug into a person rather than a frozen turkey. As such with most subjective reasoning, the premise is purely contextual.
You are arguing 2 points, from what I read. You are against owning multiple guns of an arbitrary (let's call it what it is) number you see fit. Also, you are against mentally unstable people owning guns.
I think everyone agrees with your second point here. But it doesn't have much to do with the ban debate.
Your first point on not allowing more than a X number of guns is for what, exactly? Laws are tailored for a purpose and I don't see the reason for you arguing this.
|
"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” - Alvin Toffler
|
|
|
On December 18 2012 11:01 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous? The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now. I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States. What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment. Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one. And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article. To quote the article: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive." Thank you for at least taking the due diligence to read it. That much is all any one can ask for. You brought up automatic weapons. Let's just say they're as good as banned, and only 20-50,000 dollars and an extensive 8 week check by the ATF will land you one.
The Harvard criminologists don't say that. They say that there is no correlation between implementing stringent gun controls (virtual bannings in most cases) and substantial reduction in criminal violence or suicide. The ACRU takes this as meaning that gun control is counterproductive, but that's a poor conclusion to draw. If the criminologists said there was a NEGATIVE correlation, then it would be the correct conclusion to draw (and the ACRU tries to do this by taking two ends of a data table in their article).
Unfortunately it's a scanned doc so I can't search .pdf, but nowhere in the conclusions or introduction do the criminologists conclude gun control is counterproductive. I mean, there's one or two references to 70s and 90s studies, but it's tremendously bad form to cite that as from the article by the ACRU.
Assuming that stricter gun control means fewer firearms isn't very good science to me, either, but whatever. I can imagine a society with strict limits on everything above and including handguns could have a high possession rate but still fit the umbrella of gun control.
Edit: I will say that it's ludicrous for the study authors to decide the only three reasons for lowering of US violent crime could be gun control, more incarceration, or death sentences. Broken window policies anyone?
|
On December 18 2012 11:12 Esk23 wrote:
A lot of people keep comparing the US to Europe regarding gun control or bans. There's a big difference, 65 million Americans are on psychiatric drugs, the US uses %85 of the world's pain killers while being only %4 of the world's population (most of it is drug abuse). The US has a MAJOR drug problem. Fix the drugs and violence will go way down.
Another good side point.
|
On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:
[quote]
I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed?
One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website:
He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation.
I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him).
While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents.
|
On December 18 2012 11:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:01 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:
[quote]
But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous? The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now. I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States. What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment. Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one. And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article. To quote the article: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive." Thank you for at least taking the due diligence to read it. That much is all any one can ask for. You brought up automatic weapons. Let's just say they're as good as banned, and only 20-50,000 dollars and an extensive 8 week check by the ATF will land you one. The Harvard criminologists don't say that.
Page 670
|
On December 18 2012 11:04 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:51 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:45 tokicheese wrote:On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation. No reason does not dictate that you shouldn't only have one gun... I have 4 a .22 for target shooting/plinking, a 30-06 and a shotgun and an SKS. The 22 costs next to nothing to shoot like a penny per round but I can't hunt with it. Anything shot with a .22 would more than likely not die unless it was a squirrel or something. My 30-06 is for hunting deer Ypu are required by law to use a large bullet for buying and ethically shooting a deer with a large hollow point minimizes suffering as much as possible. It also costs like $2 per 30-06 round. My SKS/Shotgun are for fun. Semi auto and blowing away frozen turkeys and shit with a huge deer slug is hilarious. Guns are fucking tools you need to use the right tool for the job... Having one gun pretty much limits your shooting to one thing. The Lanza mother had 4 handguns. Are telling me that that it's reasonable for one woman to be packing so much heat? I understand the difference between styles of weapon and agree that 'guns are fucking tools,' I spent time on my family farm, and own a shotty for wasting possums but rural life necessitates the use of weapons as tools. In other contexts reason dictates that it isn't necessary, as in my example. Edit: It sounds like you only use 2 of your 4 guns as tools. The SKS and shotty seem to provide you more with entertainment. You seem like a reasonable guy, but what if a mentally unstable individual got their kicks out of sinking a solid slug into a person rather than a frozen turkey. As such with most subjective reasoning, the premise is purely contextual. You are arguing 2 points, from what I read. You are against owning multiple guns of an arbitrary (let's call it what it is) number you see fit. Also, you are against mentally unstable people owning guns. I think everyone agrees with your second point here. But it doesn't have much to do with the ban debate. Your first point on not allowing more than a X number of guns is for what, exactly? Laws are tailored for a purpose and I don't see the reason for you arguing this.
I just think it's unnecessary for people to own multiple copies of the same weapon or weapons with similar purposes. It would go some way to limiting the amount of arms available in the public sector while maintaining the integrity of the 2nd amendment. It's a compromise.
The China example was for those people who cling to the chestnut, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It illustrates the massive increase in the potential for loss of life when guns are readily available as it makes killing 'easy.'
I do not argue so much for the government to go get the guns of the psychos and hillbillies, but for some national soul searching and a change to the militant gun culture in the direction of more responsible gun ownership. The only way I see this happening is a national discourse over gun owners rights, however that will not happen while the 2nd is enshrined in a constitution where, in my opinion, it has no practical application. Progress is earned by questioning tradition.
I'm apologize if my argument has become a little obtuse, I find it difficult to keep up with the debate online. It doesn't help that I'm writing an research paper on a completely unrelated subject right now. In order to maintain my sanity I'll withdraw form the discussion for now but will continue to contemplate the subject.
|
On December 18 2012 11:19 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 11:01 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:[quote] That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous? The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now. I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States. What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment. Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one. And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article. To quote the article: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive." Thank you for at least taking the due diligence to read it. That much is all any one can ask for. You brought up automatic weapons. Let's just say they're as good as banned, and only 20-50,000 dollars and an extensive 8 week check by the ATF will land you one. The Harvard criminologists don't say that. Page 670
Woah, woah. Page 670 talks about conceal and carry. This does not show that gun control is counterproductive. You can have strictly controlled guns with conceal and carry.
Again: higher number of people with guns does not mean that guns are not as controlled.
Edit: That's also not the conclusion of the criminologists, it's research done by other people (Lott 1997). Why not just cite the other people in the ACRU article? Because the research is a decade old and it isn't spicy.
|
On December 18 2012 10:51 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:45 tokicheese wrote:On December 18 2012 10:30 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 18 2012 10:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:13 frantic.cactus wrote:
So you can't arm people who aren't licensed for the weapons. It will decrease the amount of weapons in the public sector creating a safer society with no discernible effect on responsible gun owners. This is because they aren't Goro and can't wield more than one gun, so whats the point in then owning multiple copies of the same style weapon. I'm for better mental health regulation for firearms, as well as some sort of proficiency standard. Are you advocating that you cannot buy more than 1 type of gun? Because you can't hold more than 2 guys you should not be able to buy more than that. Am I correct in that assessment of what you typed?
I meant that competing views that seem to have equal amounts of factual backing is unproductive to the discussion at large as both sides feel that their position is unassailable and factually sound. What I think is needed is some Government commission of enquirey into the effects of widespread gun ownership in America society.
The evidence is HEAVILY in favor of guns rights--against bans. From all types of sources, university studies AND government studies. Sure why not. Personnaly I'm against hand guns and I would never want to own one. But a close friend if my dad has over 100 guns at his house and his cabin. He trades guns buy low sell high and he makes good money. I don't see a reason for putting an arbitrary cap on thE amount of guns you can own. It's not like her owning 4 guns were used were they? I am arguing that it is illogical to allow a single mother of two to own 4 hand guns and a rifle. Reason dictates that she would need one handgun, and one rifle. The excess just increases the number of weapons on the market. You are only allow 2 handguns if you are Neo. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine but I can't read an academic document without being a little suspicious of the motives behind their publication. In my opinion idependant inquiries are the best way to get a wholesome and unbiased view of the situation. No reason does not dictate that you shouldn't only have one gun... I have 4 a .22 for target shooting/plinking, a 30-06 and a shotgun and an SKS. The 22 costs next to nothing to shoot like a penny per round but I can't hunt with it. Anything shot with a .22 would more than likely not die unless it was a squirrel or something. My 30-06 is for hunting deer Ypu are required by law to use a large bullet for buying and ethically shooting a deer with a large hollow point minimizes suffering as much as possible. It also costs like $2 per 30-06 round. My SKS/Shotgun are for fun. Semi auto and blowing away frozen turkeys and shit with a huge deer slug is hilarious. Guns are fucking tools you need to use the right tool for the job... Having one gun pretty much limits your shooting to one thing. The Lanza mother had 4 handguns. Are telling me that that it's reasonable for one woman to be packing so much heat? I understand the difference between styles of weapon and agree that 'guns are fucking tools,' I spent time on my family farm, and own a shotty for wasting possums but rural life necessitates the use of weapons as tools. In other contexts reason dictates that it isn't necessary, as in my example. Edit: It sounds like you only use 2 of your 4 guns as tools. The SKS and shotty seem to provide you more with entertainment. You seem like a reasonable guy, but what if a mentally unstable individual got their kicks out of sinking a solid slug into a person rather than a frozen turkey. As such with most subjective reasoning, the premise is purely contextual.
Stupid phone >.> I'm against hand guns but if people want to own them and use them responsibly I don't see why not. A friend of my dad has 100's of guns at his house and his isolated cabin safely secured in a gun safe. He has 10 pistols and he buys and sells guns legally for some income on the side. His family has gone to the same little spot in the woods for literally a century plus. I don't see a reason to arbitrarily cap the amount of guns you can own. One gun can still kill you as much as a guy with 100.
The kid didn't even use a pistol did he? I thought he had a bushmaster
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 18 2012 10:51 crbox wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:40 micronesia wrote:On December 18 2012 10:38 crbox wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In all seriousness though, since the Connecticut shooting, there's been a lot of debate on the subject. I'm hearing all sort of nonsense like the teachers should have guns too to defend themselves and the kids... What if the teacher goes mad and start shooting kids himself? The best solution would be to prohibit guns, but Americans are not ready to give up on their "Right to defend themselves" (the right to carry a gun basically) Ah good, finally, someone figured out the solution... let's prohibit guns. Problem solved! You do realize the issue is more complex than that, right? This has been covered many times in this thread by people of almost all viewpoints. I didn't say I got the solution,
"The best solution would be to prohibit guns"
neither did I say I thought the issue was that simple. Sounded like a pretty simple proposed solution, to me.
Sorry for expressing my opinion Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.
I find your arrogance kind of misplaced when I'm expressing a valid opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'arrogance' to be honest.... did I direct my arrogance at you somehow?
Of course the issue is not that simple, people could get guns by other ways, but it doesn't make it less viable to prohibit guns e.e Prohibiting guns will have negative effects in addition to possibly having the positive ones you proposed... this is why you shouldn't have originally stated it like the solution to the problem. You are reneging now, but your earlier post sang a different tune.
|
On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: Show nested quote +He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking
http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general.
I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.)
|
On December 18 2012 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:19 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 11:01 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:[quote] I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous? The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now. I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States. What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment. Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one. And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article. To quote the article: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive." Thank you for at least taking the due diligence to read it. That much is all any one can ask for. You brought up automatic weapons. Let's just say they're as good as banned, and only 20-50,000 dollars and an extensive 8 week check by the ATF will land you one. The Harvard criminologists don't say that. Page 670 Woah, woah. Page 670 talks about conceal and carry. This does not show that gun control is counterproductive. You can have strictly controlled guns with conceal and carry. Again: higher number of people with guns does not mean that guns are not as controlled.Edit: That's also not the conclusion of the criminologists, it's research done by other people (Lott 1997). Why not just cite the other people in the ACRU article? Because the research is a decade old and it isn't spicy.
My fault there, I'm trying to argue with many people at a time, so while you're doing that alone I have these other guys to contend with as well. I'll try to give your point more time when I can.
As for the study itself I feel like it has not lost worth any of it's value because it still refutes the argument that gun control is effective. (and it is one of MANY that do)
|
On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why?
The concept of gun ownership is simple: personal or family defense.... How would a bomb protect you ?.....
And anyways, you can craft explosives..All the ingredients are available legally....The unibomber....Didn't need a gun to do what he did. Don't make it easy for people to kill people, but acknowledge that you can't stop it, unless you will throw out any civil rights out the door - and then pray that the people that control don't "evolve" into some crazy monsterss..
The argument shouldn't be guns or no guns....Just don't make it so easy for people to kill people that have nothing against them. And owning a gun, should only be possible if you really know how to use it and your mind in tense situations - which should be determined - and training should never stop if you want to own a gun, a few hours a week of training should be mandatory imo...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/63997_10151185738566840_1770010132_n.jpg)
