EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/90SsNYM.png)
Someone asked for the title to be changed in one direction, and KwarK went in another direction with a new name change.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44329 Posts
Someone asked for the title to be changed in one direction, and KwarK went in another direction with a new name change. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 03 2015 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Someone asked for the title to be changed in one direction, and KwarK went in another direction with a new name change. I asked because the title suggested an XOR situation of whether people should own guns. That biases the discussion into a Gunner versus Anti-Gunner discussion instead of a more reasonable discussion on what limits and requirements we should have. The real question is what rules we should have. I will go first: Handguns should be harder to get than driver's licenses, and should require a comparable handgunners license. Longuns should remain with low regulation, comparable to what we have in California now. Police should be empowered to impound weapons (and proactively hunt for them) in cases where someone is shown to have serious untreated mental health issues, is a felon, and/or gets busted for domestic violence. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed, but plenty of open-carry/ concealed-carry users fancy themselves a hero and would like to shoot down whoever they think is a bad guy, and start a shoot-out. Reread the study. The author includes felons, mutual combat participants ( gang warfare), and criminal elements as assault "victims" in the groupset. It also fails to account for people who buy firearms because their life is in immediate danger, and thus already at higher risk of assault. As people seldom do the reverse (sell guns in response to threat of death), the study necessairily overcounts the former in the results, despite trying to account for legally-reported death threats. If the author's study was of interest for noncriminals, defensive gun use and homicide statistics would be switched. Likewise, police departments would be first to disarm. Studies have been done on actual defensive gun use. Despite suffering from the same correlation/causation issues as above, DGU is at least as effective as other forms of defense for the same legal categories of crime. Possibly because CHL holders are literally half as likely to commit crimes of any sort than even police officers. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
So i would say, and i'm sorry there: it's bs. Now you will tell me some blabla about guns for sport and hunting use, which i will answer to: other countries regulate these weapons as well. Even countries with very strict gun laws allow the use of rifles for hobby purposes. Under conditions. Guns that can be retrofitted to be full automatic weapons (like the AR15 for example) should be banned altogether. There's literally no reason to have them, other than "being a badass" (or retard, depends on the perspective). | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
And I'd say the study is quite of interest to non-criminals. I'm not entirely clear on what your criticisms of the study are, so I can't really respond to them until I do. As to these studies of defensive gun use, can you provide links/citations so we can read them? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 09:51 m4ini wrote: I don't see any reason to leave rifles out of it. Especially in regards to planned shootings, where they are not rare. Quite a few mass murderers had at least a shotgun with them, if not AR15s or even (semi auto) AK47s. So i would say, and i'm sorry there: it's bs. Now you will tell me some blabla about guns for sport and hunting use, which i will answer to: other countries regulate these weapons as well. Even countries with very strict gun laws allow the use of rifles for hobby purposes. Under conditions. The English Olympic Pistol Team has to practice in France because of commonsense gun laws. I can only assume that being rich or famous enough to practice out-of-country is sufficient "conditions". On October 03 2015 09:51 m4ini wrote: Guns that can be retrofitted to be full automatic weapons (like the AR15 for example) should be banned altogether. There's literally no reason to have them, other than "being a badass" (or retard, depends on the perspective). Um, what? If you can retrofit an AR15 to be full-automatic, you can retrofit any cartridge gun to be full-automatic; it literally requires demilling the receiver, forging a new bolt, and building new trigger links (yeah, good luck). Are you advocating for a complete gun ban on anything other than black powder weapons? | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 03 2015 09:56 zlefin wrote: acker - I think the study is quite good on the topic it studies, it notes quite carefully what the limitations and issues are. And I'd say the study is quite of interest to non-criminals. I'm not entirely clear on what your criticisms of the study are, so I can't really respond to them until I do. As to these studies of defensive gun use, can you provide links/citations so we can read them? Warning: DGU is a heavily politicized topic that well funded Gunner think tanks spend quite a bit of money to propagandize on. Firearms statistics are notoriously hard to come by (no thanks to the useless congress that bans their collection by the FEDGOV). Whatever pro-DGU study somebody comes up with, make sure to check the source and see who paid for it. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
Improving school security would hep, but eliminating easy access to guns will still be needed, and even then people would still get killed. Someone who is carrying 5-7 guns, a flack jacket, and boxes of ammo would still kill several people even if the school had a dozen officer patrolling. It only takes a min or two to run into a building and start shooting. You are not going to have armed officers at every door...24x7. The right to bear arms made sense 250 yrs ago..the civilian militias were the equivalent of the modern army, but they had to provide their OWN guns. In fact, there was NO appreciable armed, standing army, till the early 1800s ( around the time of the War of 1812), Back then you also had multiple foreign governments in Europe claiming portions of North America (esp the French and Spanish) which lead to several wars on what is now US soil. Outside of cities, you had to go hunt for food, and there were numerous "wars" with the native americans throughout the 1800s. So yes, back then you had to be able to arm yourself. It made sense. Now go ahead 200+ years. What do you need a gun for today? To prevent a military takeover of the government? Sorry but civilians with 30-06s are not going to worry someone who could orchestrate such a coup. Protection against robbery or an assault...maybe.....but as many people are hurt because they don't know how to handle a gun as are hurt by robbers and crooks. At least tighten up on what it takes to get a weapon, and be sure to address the issue those who already have guns BEFORE such laws take effect. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 10:05 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Warning: DGU is a heavily politicized topic that well funded Gunner think tanks spend quite a bit of money to propagandize on. Firearms statistics are notoriously hard to come by (no thanks to the useless congress that bans their collection by the FEDGOV). Whatever pro-DGU study somebody comes up with, make sure to check the source and see who paid for it. Warning: Congress cut off all federal funding to gun research topics two decades ago (due to either CDC director bias or NRA lobbying, or both). Any research on the issue is opinionated due to lack of alternative funding sources. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 10:12 zlefin wrote: Well, we need to correct that, as the topic clearly needs more and better research. Good luck finding an independent source of funding that both sides could agree is not biased. More importantly, it would literally change nothing. People who support gun rights would support them even if they resulted in a net loss of life, the same way the ACLU supports the exclusionary rule, search warrants, and violent speech*. Gun control proponents would want to do so even if it led to more people dying by non-gun crime or left ordinary civilians defenseless, the same way Mexico cracks down on legal gun ownership while being completely ineffective against cartel hitmen. *Note: the "fire in a theater" crap was overturned 50 years ago in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The new standard is "imminent lawless action". Stuff like "kill the Jews" is perfectly acceptable as free speech in the United States because it doesn't specify a time. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
It would help me to design better policy. A better understanding of the issues makes it possible to craft better policy. It'd be nice to know what the best policy is, so when we do get the political will to do something, we know what to do, rather than needing to wait yet more time to figure out what to do. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 10:53 zlefin wrote: I don't really care if someone biased refuses to see that the source is unbiased, I care about whether the source IS unbiased. It would help me to design better policy. A better understanding of the issues makes it possible to craft better policy. It'd be nice to know what the best policy is, so when we do get the political will to do something, we know what to do, rather than needing to wait yet more time to figure out what to do. There is no such thing as an unbiased source. There are only sources that are seen as unbiased. The only unbiased experiment would be running a randomized controlled trial where half the experimental population is handed a gun. It would be an interesting experiment. It would never get funded and the results would be irrelevant. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 03 2015 10:53 zlefin wrote: I don't really care if someone biased refuses to see that the source is unbiased, I care about whether the source IS unbiased. It would help me to design better policy. A better understanding of the issues makes it possible to craft better policy. It'd be nice to know what the best policy is, so when we do get the political will to do something, we know what to do, rather than needing to wait yet more time to figure out what to do. As Obama eloquently argued, then you have to change the politics around firearms regulation. When you vote, you need to make sure you vote for someone who will open up firearms research. Obviously this means you had better vote Democrat. 85% of Democrat legislators would be open to more firearms statistics. 100% of Republicans would shut down the government to block it. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 11:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote: As Obama eloquently argued, then you have to change the politics around firearms regulation. When you vote, you need to make sure you vote for someone who will open up firearms research. Obviously this means you had better vote Democrat. 85% of Democrat legislators would be open to more firearms statistics. 100% of Republicans would shut down the government to block it. 100% of legislators would be open to more firearms statistics from sources of their choosing. Something tells me Democrats would not want to fund firearms statistics from Kleck, and Republicans would not want the same from Hemenway. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 03 2015 11:03 acker wrote: There is no such thing as an unbiased source. There are only sources that are seen as unbiased. The only unbiased experiment would be running a randomized controlled trial where half the experimental population is handed a gun. It would be an interesting experiment. It would never get funded and the results would be irrelevant. unbiased means no significant bias, not absolutely unbiased. And there's plenty of ways to run very useful experiments. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 03 2015 11:11 zlefin wrote: unbiased means no significant bias, not absolutely unbiased. And there's plenty of ways to run very useful experiments. That runs into the question of what "significant" means. There are "very useful" experiments that work on the public to shape opinion, like the previously-linked study or Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. "Very useful" doesn't mean accurate. It almost never means "accurate" or "not misleading" in gun studies. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
What's wrong with the prior-linked study (that the study itself didn't note)? And getting more research with better methodology leads to better, more accurate results. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On October 03 2015 10:04 acker wrote: The English Olympic Pistol Team has to practice in France because of commonsense gun laws. I can only assume that being rich or famous enough to practice out-of-country is sufficient "conditions". You can assume alot of things, or you could stop acting like a 6 year old and look at another country with strict gun laws. One country not doing it right doesn't equal to "doesn't work". And btw, if it only prevents ONE person from dying, who cares if the olympic team has to (oh dear) fly for almost(!) 50 minutes to train. Just as a sidenote from someone who flies at least 12x a year from the UK to germany. On October 03 2015 09:51 m4ini wrote: Um, what? If you can retrofit an AR15 to be full-automatic, you can retrofit any cartridge gun to be full-automatic; it literally requires demilling the receiver, forging a new bolt, and building new trigger links (yeah, good luck). Are you advocating for a complete gun ban on anything other than black powder weapons? It's not "if" you can retrofit. It's "are you able to simply google". And then order one of those retrofits, which get professionally distributed. Said retrofit for AK47s and AR15 is a whopping $400, and gets professionally distributed. How about, for starters, make it illegal to manufacture, advertise and sell those retrofits? edit: while we're at it, feel free to explain why these weapons specifically should not be regulated as much. | ||
| ||
