|
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 May 23 2013 04:07 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:01 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? You can buy a fully automatic weapon that has been registered in 1986 or earlier, registration doesn't need to be done by the buyer. I see - that is a little confusing and not exactly what I was thinking. Regardless, I would not have issues with fully automatic weapons provided there is a strong system to make sure the buyers are not criminals or mentally ill, and to require purchasers to qualify and pay for a permit to own such a weapon. Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:06 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? Silencers are restricted in the US too in much the same way, at least Federally. Gotta go through the ATF and get a $200 tax stamp. They're restricted even further in some states, with NY considering anything with a silencer an "Assault Weapon". If a fully automatic weapon was made or imported after 1986, it can't be bought or sold, at least not without being converted to semi-automatic. I believe you can still inherit it, but I'm not certain. Understood - and thank you for clarifying. I just want to make clear my stance: I'm not for banning, I'm just for making sure that criminals have a tougher time getting their hands on weapons, and mentally ill people do not have as easy an access to such weapons.
I don't want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns either, but it is more important to me to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens first.
|
On May 22 2013 21:10 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 18:21 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous. As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/I apologize if this has already been posted a dozen times.
A list of articles isn't a data set. What I wanted is the methodologies and actual statistical results.
That said, the list does reveal some clear biases. All of the studies are co-authored by Matthew Miller or David Hemenway (most are co-authored by both), both outstanding gun control ideologues. The only studies that do not simply show correlations rather than causation are 9 and 10. Study 9 analyzed households, rather than individuals, so the conclusion that "gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners" is unsubstantiated. Study 10 was based on a phone survey, which is not an effective means of determining suicide proclivity.
Notice how the only studies which actually purport to show causation are based on unreliable methodologies? It seems to suggest the researchers are cherry picking questionable data in order to push for their ideological biases.
|
On May 23 2013 04:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:07 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 04:01 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? You can buy a fully automatic weapon that has been registered in 1986 or earlier, registration doesn't need to be done by the buyer. I see - that is a little confusing and not exactly what I was thinking. Regardless, I would not have issues with fully automatic weapons provided there is a strong system to make sure the buyers are not criminals or mentally ill, and to require purchasers to qualify and pay for a permit to own such a weapon. On May 23 2013 04:06 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works. On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? Silencers are restricted in the US too in much the same way, at least Federally. Gotta go through the ATF and get a $200 tax stamp. They're restricted even further in some states, with NY considering anything with a silencer an "Assault Weapon". If a fully automatic weapon was made or imported after 1986, it can't be bought or sold, at least not without being converted to semi-automatic. I believe you can still inherit it, but I'm not certain. Understood - and thank you for clarifying. I just want to make clear my stance: I'm not for banning, I'm just for making sure that criminals have a tougher time getting their hands on weapons, and mentally ill people do not have as easy an access to such weapons. I don't want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns either, but it is more important to me to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens first.
We should do both at the same time. Reform firearms control so that it resembles vehicle licensing, so that gunowners must demonstrate proficiency and safety, and you'll get a system that not only keeps firearms away from those who shouldn't have them, but legitimizes their ownership by those who should.
|
On May 23 2013 04:09 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:58 micronesia wrote:On May 23 2013 03:53 Melliflue wrote:
The 'use' of alcohol is enjoyment. People enjoy it and it helps them relax. Personally though I'm teetotal and think it would be great if people didn't drink to excess or drink & drive etc but they do. Making alcohol illegal though would probably make things worse because people would just break the law and so organised crime would get a new revenue stream. So for me, ideally people would be allowed to drink because nobody would abuse it. Pragmatically making alcohol illegal has a bigger negative effect. (This is debatable but it is a side topic, and I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between arguments based in idealism and arguments based in pragmatism).
My attitude towards guns is quite similar. It would be wonderful if everyone could own a gun and nobody ever misused a gun, but that's not how the world is. So pragmatism should take over and restrict access to guns. That's how I end up with the question of whether the value guns contribute outweighs the harm done. It's a pragmatic approach. You pointed out the problems with restricting alcohol (see 1920s USA) but pointedly ignored the problems with further restricting guns. You can't have it both ways! That's not to say all new gun restrictions would be bad, but there would be some similarities at least between the prohibition and hypothetical increased gun bans. History has shown laws of prohibition are not a good way to change culture. Fair point. For some reason I was thinking that people wouldn't be so keen to get guns if they were made illegal that they would resort to buying guns illegally. There would be some people but I assumed it wouldn't be as bad as alcohol prohibition (or illegal drugs now). I am not aware of any studies into this though. There are examples from history of what happens with making alcohol/drugs legal or illegal but I cannot think of a country (with a gun culture) that tried to ban guns. In general I agree with the idea that prohibition laws are not a good way to change culture.
Um...the Colonies? Lexington and Concord? Any gun prohibition / confiscation would be met as it was then, with defensive force. This is why the Government tries myriad ways to disarm the population without making their intentions in your face. Case in point; the extreme proliferation of new felony laws (esp. 'drugs') which bar such people from owning a weapon. In fact, there are so many felony laws that the case has been made that the average American commits 3 felonies a day.
Also, if there is demand, supply will be meet such demand. Criminals will always demand such weapons to make their criminality easier, especially when the population writ large (99.9% of population are peaceful folk) has been disarmed by the oh-so-benevolent Government. Anyways, this misses the entire point - Individuals have the RIGHT to defend their liberties, their property, and their community without having to ask permission from some 'authority' esp. Government. I think its crystal clear that if anyone should be disarmed, it should be the Government. I notice no one bats an eye when the Obama Drone Program kills hundreds of innocents weekly overseas...out of sight out of mind, right?
|
On May 23 2013 04:38 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 21:10 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 22 2013 18:21 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous. As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/I apologize if this has already been posted a dozen times. A list of articles isn't a data set. What I wanted is the methodologies and actual statistical results. That said, the list does reveal some clear biases. All of the studies are co-authored by Matthew Miller or David Hemenway (most are co-authored by both), both outstanding gun control ideologues. The only studies that do not simply show correlations rather than causation are 9 and 10. Study 9 analyzed households, rather than individuals, so the conclusion that "gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners" is unsubstantiated. Study 10 was based on a phone survey, which is not an effective means of determining suicide proclivity. Notice how the only studies which actually purport to show causation are based on unreliable methodologies? It seems to suggest the researchers are cherry picking questionable data in order to push for their ideological biases.
You ask for data. I provide data, via Harvard.
Here is the total list of authors included in these studies:
Miller, Matthew
Hemenway, David
Azrael, Deborah
Lippmann, Steven
Hepburn, Lisa
Birckmayer, Johanna
Barber, Catherine
Betz, Marian E
Johnson, Rene M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway
David Hemenway is a well respected professor and author in both injury prevention, and economics. He's written widely on injury prevention, including articles on firearms, violence, suicide, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, fires, falls and fractures. Of his five books, only 1 focuses on firearms.
He obviously disagrees with you, but is also much, much more qualified than you.
Correlation does not equal causation, but the correlation here is strong, and still stands after equalizing for factors like age, ethnicity, and income.
You claim that the methodologies are false, without pointing out why (unless it's your correlation/causation argument). Again, I"m going to assume that a lifelong academic who is highly respected in his field is more qualified to make this judgement rather than you.
Did you hunt down and read all of these articles, studies, and publications? Or did you just skim the page that I linked you, and say, 'correlation doesn't equal causation'?
I'm guessing one of the many peer reviewers might have had the same thought somewhere along the line.
EDIT: Personally, I think its intuitive that increased access to guns will lead to increased suicide rates. It's much easier to pull a trigger than jump off a building, swallow pills and wait, or cut your wrists. It's also much more likely to kill you successfully. I'm surprised that this is even an issue that warrants research.
|
On May 23 2013 07:20 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:38 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 21:10 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 22 2013 18:21 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous. As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/I apologize if this has already been posted a dozen times. A list of articles isn't a data set. What I wanted is the methodologies and actual statistical results. That said, the list does reveal some clear biases. All of the studies are co-authored by Matthew Miller or David Hemenway (most are co-authored by both), both outstanding gun control ideologues. The only studies that do not simply show correlations rather than causation are 9 and 10. Study 9 analyzed households, rather than individuals, so the conclusion that "gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners" is unsubstantiated. Study 10 was based on a phone survey, which is not an effective means of determining suicide proclivity. Notice how the only studies which actually purport to show causation are based on unreliable methodologies? It seems to suggest the researchers are cherry picking questionable data in order to push for their ideological biases. You ask for data. I provide data, via Harvard. Here is the total list of authors included in these studies: Miller, Matthew Hemenway, David Azrael, Deborah Lippmann, Steven Hepburn, Lisa Birckmayer, Johanna Barber, Catherine Betz, Marian E Johnson, Rene M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_HemenwayDavid Hemenway is a well respected professor and author in both injury prevention, and economics. He's written widely on injury prevention, including articles on firearms, violence, suicide, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, fires, falls and fractures. Of his five books, only 1 focuses on firearms. He obviously disagrees with you, but is also much, much more qualified than you. Correlation does not equal causation, but the correlation here is strong, and still stands after equalizing for factors like age, ethnicity, and income. You claim that the methodologies are false, without pointing out why (unless it's your correlation/causation argument). Again, I"m going to assume that a lifelong academic who is highly respected in his field is more qualified to make this judgement rather than you. Did you hunt down and read all of these articles, studies, and publications? Or did you just skim the page that I linked you, and say, 'correlation doesn't equal causation'? I'm guessing one of the many peer reviewers might have had the same thought somewhere along the line. EDIT: Personally, I think its intuitive that increased access to guns will lead to increased suicide rates. It's much easier to pull a trigger than jump off a building, swallow pills and wait, or cut your wrists. It's also much more likely to kill you successfully. I'm surprised that this is even an issue that warrants research.
Are those people the heads of NRA? Then obviously biased 
He said so.
|
On May 23 2013 07:20 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:38 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 21:10 stuneedsfood wrote:On May 22 2013 18:21 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous. As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/I apologize if this has already been posted a dozen times. A list of articles isn't a data set. What I wanted is the methodologies and actual statistical results. That said, the list does reveal some clear biases. All of the studies are co-authored by Matthew Miller or David Hemenway (most are co-authored by both), both outstanding gun control ideologues. The only studies that do not simply show correlations rather than causation are 9 and 10. Study 9 analyzed households, rather than individuals, so the conclusion that "gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners" is unsubstantiated. Study 10 was based on a phone survey, which is not an effective means of determining suicide proclivity. Notice how the only studies which actually purport to show causation are based on unreliable methodologies? It seems to suggest the researchers are cherry picking questionable data in order to push for their ideological biases. You ask for data. I provide data, via Harvard. Here is the total list of authors included in these studies: Miller, Matthew Hemenway, David Azrael, Deborah Lippmann, Steven Hepburn, Lisa Birckmayer, Johanna Barber, Catherine Betz, Marian E Johnson, Rene M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_HemenwayDavid Hemenway is a well respected professor and author in both injury prevention, and economics. He's written widely on injury prevention, including articles on firearms, violence, suicide, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, fires, falls and fractures. Of his five books, only 1 focuses on firearms. He obviously disagrees with you, but is also much, much more qualified than you. Correlation does not equal causation, but the correlation here is strong, and still stands after equalizing for factors like age, ethnicity, and income. You claim that the methodologies are false, without pointing out why (unless it's your correlation/causation argument). Again, I"m going to assume that a lifelong academic who is highly respected in his field is more qualified to make this judgement rather than you.
I explained exactly what was wrong with the methodologies of studies 9 and 10. Try actually reading.
On May 23 2013 07:20 stuneedsfood wrote:
Did you hunt down and read all of these articles, studies, and publications? Or did you just skim the page that I linked you, and say, 'correlation doesn't equal causation'?
I'm not going to pay for a dozen articles, studies, and publications. That is why I asked you to provide data, rather than the titles of studies with one paragraph summaries.
On May 23 2013 07:20 stuneedsfood wrote:
I'm guessing one of the many peer reviewers might have had the same thought somewhere along the line.
My point is that most of those articles don't actually argue causation. I addressed the two that do.
On May 23 2013 07:20 stuneedsfood wrote:
EDIT: Personally, I think its intuitive that increased access to guns will lead to increased suicide rates. It's much easier to pull a trigger than jump off a building, swallow pills and wait, or cut your wrists. It's also much more likely to kill you successfully. I'm surprised that this is even an issue that warrants research.
It's intuitively easier to stab yourself with a knife than any other form of suicide. You also have access to a knife much, much more often than a firearm.
|
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies.
When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim
|
527 pages now, has no one put this to the ultimate DEMOCRATIC TEST?!?!?
... Well someone probably did, but let's try again?
Poll: Should citizens be allowed to own guns?Yes (15) 60% No (6) 24% Photosynthesis (4) 16% 25 total votes Your vote: Should citizens be allowed to own guns? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Photosynthesis
|
On May 23 2013 04:40 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:22 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 04:07 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 04:01 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more.
[quote]
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works.
[quote]
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more.
[quote]
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works.
[quote]
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? You can buy a fully automatic weapon that has been registered in 1986 or earlier, registration doesn't need to be done by the buyer. I see - that is a little confusing and not exactly what I was thinking. Regardless, I would not have issues with fully automatic weapons provided there is a strong system to make sure the buyers are not criminals or mentally ill, and to require purchasers to qualify and pay for a permit to own such a weapon. On May 23 2013 04:06 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more.
[quote]
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works.
[quote]
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more.
[quote]
Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works.
[quote]
What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used. Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? Silencers are restricted in the US too in much the same way, at least Federally. Gotta go through the ATF and get a $200 tax stamp. They're restricted even further in some states, with NY considering anything with a silencer an "Assault Weapon". If a fully automatic weapon was made or imported after 1986, it can't be bought or sold, at least not without being converted to semi-automatic. I believe you can still inherit it, but I'm not certain. Understood - and thank you for clarifying. I just want to make clear my stance: I'm not for banning, I'm just for making sure that criminals have a tougher time getting their hands on weapons, and mentally ill people do not have as easy an access to such weapons. I don't want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns either, but it is more important to me to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens first. We should do both at the same time. Reform firearms control so that it resembles vehicle licensing, so that gunowners must demonstrate proficiency and safety, and you'll get a system that not only keeps firearms away from those who shouldn't have them, but legitimizes their ownership by those who should.
That should only be for carrying a weapon in public. You don't need any licensing or training to drive on private property, and you shouldn't need any for owning a weapon for use on private property.
|
On May 23 2013 11:25 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:40 sunprince wrote:On May 23 2013 04:22 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 04:07 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 04:01 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? You can buy a fully automatic weapon that has been registered in 1986 or earlier, registration doesn't need to be done by the buyer. I see - that is a little confusing and not exactly what I was thinking. Regardless, I would not have issues with fully automatic weapons provided there is a strong system to make sure the buyers are not criminals or mentally ill, and to require purchasers to qualify and pay for a permit to own such a weapon. On May 23 2013 04:06 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items. If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners. With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out. On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:On May 23 2013 03:52 JinDesu wrote:On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works. Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands. On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:
I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.
I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.
As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind. Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them. Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush. With regards to silencers - then perhaps that is why the Swiss allows them only with an additional permit. Would the application of additional permits for such accessories as opposed to a complete ban make it more amenable to you? I didn't mean to say that I meant silencers would make shootings undetectable, I just thought that it could reduce it to the point where outside traffic could drown out the noise. On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.
The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law. I did not know that they were not banned - but do they require registration at all? Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986? Silencers are restricted in the US too in much the same way, at least Federally. Gotta go through the ATF and get a $200 tax stamp. They're restricted even further in some states, with NY considering anything with a silencer an "Assault Weapon". If a fully automatic weapon was made or imported after 1986, it can't be bought or sold, at least not without being converted to semi-automatic. I believe you can still inherit it, but I'm not certain. Understood - and thank you for clarifying. I just want to make clear my stance: I'm not for banning, I'm just for making sure that criminals have a tougher time getting their hands on weapons, and mentally ill people do not have as easy an access to such weapons. I don't want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns either, but it is more important to me to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens first. We should do both at the same time. Reform firearms control so that it resembles vehicle licensing, so that gunowners must demonstrate proficiency and safety, and you'll get a system that not only keeps firearms away from those who shouldn't have them, but legitimizes their ownership by those who should. That should only be for carrying a weapon in public. You don't need any licensing or training to drive on private property, and you shouldn't need any for owning a weapon for use on private property.
No, but the person who owns the car does. It's the same for most proposed gun legislation.
|
United States44190 Posts
An amusing thought just occurred to be. Legally required commercial gun insurance the exact same way you need car insurance. Shoot up a mall? Don't worry, he paid his premiums and actuaries calculated the exact probability that someone of his background would do it along with his expected bodycount, it'll pay out the medical bills and the victims. Accidentally shoot yourself in the dick, don't worry, it happens, we'll cover the medical bills. Used in a robbery, they'll refund the money lost.
If you're completely uninsurable then you probably shouldn't have a legal firearm. The government aren't making a government registry, nor are they setting the premium prices so there's no "they're out to get you" element of it. The premiums are directly tied to your statistical likelihood of causing damage with a gun so you can't price gun owners out of the market based on ideology, if you charge too much another gun insurance company will undercut you and steal all your clients. Likewise a company offering cheap policies for ideological reasons would run out of money and go bankrupt if they were giving people gun insurance who shouldn't have guns. If you use your gun safely, keep it away from your children and in good working order then your premiums will be fuck all, especially after years of no claims. If you're using your gun stupidly, well, you still have the right to a gun but you might not be able to afford to actually use that right which is America's favourite kind of right to give people.
Also massively incentivises gun registration and so forth because who used the gun to do what is worth money to these people but the same people have no desire to take your guns away from you, your guns are good business. Also places the social cost of gun ownership on the gun owners. It's a silly idea but amusing.
|
On May 23 2013 12:39 KwarK wrote:
An amusing thought just occurred to be. Legally required commercial gun insurance the exact same way you need car insurance. Shoot up a mall? Don't worry, he paid his premiums and actuaries calculated the exact probability that someone of his background would do it along with his expected bodycount, it'll pay out the medical bills and the victims. Accidentally shoot yourself in the dick, don't worry, it happens, we'll cover the medical bills. Used in a robbery, they'll refund the money lost.
If you're completely uninsurable then you probably shouldn't have a legal firearm. The government aren't making a government registry, nor are they setting the premium prices so there's no "they're out to get you" element of it. The premiums are directly tied to your statistical likelihood of causing damage with a gun so you can't price gun owners out of the market based on ideology, if you charge too much another gun insurance company will undercut you and steal all your clients. Likewise a company offering cheap policies for ideological reasons would run out of money and go bankrupt if they were giving people gun insurance who shouldn't have guns. If you use your gun safely, keep it away from your children and in good working order then your premiums will be fuck all, especially after years of no claims. If you're using your gun stupidly, well, you still have the right to a gun but you might not be able to afford to actually use that right which is America's favourite kind of right to give people.
Also massively incentivises gun registration and so forth because who used the gun to do what is worth money to these people but the same people have no desire to take your guns away from you, your guns are good business. Also places the social cost of gun ownership on the gun owners. It's a silly idea but amusing.
We have enough corporatism as is, but I know you're being facetious. Mandatory car insurance is such a racket and fraud. A great boon to these companies, and it ain't no free-market entry into the industry. The amount of hurdles, regulatory burden, and all sorts of rigomerole to enter that industry makes it nothing short of monopolistic (writ of Government privilege). Real lovely.
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State.
|
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia
|
On May 23 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia
By this logic the Vietnam should have been an equally difficult war had the Vietnamese been unarmed.
|
On May 23 2013 14:33 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia By this logic the Vietnam should have been an equally difficult war had the Vietnamese been unarmed.
If in your world of logic NVA soldiers + military arsenal = US civilian + small arms and if 1960s US military = modern US military then ya sure, you got me
|
On May 23 2013 14:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 14:33 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia By this logic the Vietnam should have been an equally difficult war had the Vietnamese been unarmed. If in your world of logic NVA soldiers + military arsenal = US civilian + small arms and if 1960s US military = modern US military then ya sure, you got me
The US is all ready proliferated with non-small arms (e.g. SAW's, high-explosives, etc.). Also, the US is far too large for the military to be effective and Police Forces are notoriously horrible at any combat situation (look at the Dorner fiasco...talk about can't hit the broadside of the barn). If there were any significant uprising, beyond what is all ready available, Russia and China would flood the country with weapons systems.
Anyways, Standing Armies almost always lose wars of attrition and guerilla warfare fights. Just take a look at the long history of abysmal successes of such confrontations from Cornwallis and the British in the Colonies, to Russia and America in Afghanistan, etc.
I also find it a bit comical that you think the NVA were better armed relative to the American public today, or would be in such confrontation. The solution to this 'problem' is just let each State leave freely instead of chaining them to the ankle of Uncle Sam. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
|
On May 23 2013 14:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 14:33 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia By this logic the Vietnam should have been an equally difficult war had the Vietnamese been unarmed. If in your world of logic NVA soldiers + military arsenal = US civilian + small arms and if 1960s US military = modern US military then ya sure, you got me
You're saying/implying that unarmed civilians would be just as strong against the U.S. military as armed citizens against the U.S. military. Modernized weaponry doesn't change the fact that that is untrue.
|
On May 23 2013 15:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 14:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 23 2013 14:33 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia By this logic the Vietnam should have been an equally difficult war had the Vietnamese been unarmed. If in your world of logic NVA soldiers + military arsenal = US civilian + small arms and if 1960s US military = modern US military then ya sure, you got me You're saying/implying that unarmed civilians would be just as strong against the U.S. military as armed citizens against the U.S. military. Modernized weaponry doesn't change the fact that that is untrue.
So it boils down to your opinion vs. Scalia's. That's fine
|
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.
The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies
When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim
Appeal to authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
