|
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 February 22 2018 02:02 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 01:58 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 01:41 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 00:09 Danglars wrote:On February 21 2018 23:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns:
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on “assault weapons,” the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. Even the Democratic staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.
There’s some evidence that banning high-capacity ammunition magazines might—over the very long term—reduce gun injuries. But a ban on the guns themselves “does nothing,” a former Obama administration official said last year. Though the White House endorsed a renewed ban after Sandy Hook, “we did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”
The real effect of Democrats’ decades-long war on “assault weapons,” some advocates speculate, is that it’s simply made military-style guns more popular.
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. (There’s no official national count. Gun rights advocates are fiercely private about gun ownership and fear that if the government can track guns, it will be able to confiscate them.) Gun control advocates often note that America’s gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, and that this drives an overall murder rate than is 7 times higher than other rich countries.
But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence. About 100,000 Americans are killed or violently injured with guns each year—a number that includes gun suicides. The total number of crimes involving guns is higher: as many as 500,000 a year, according to Justice Department estimates.
Roughly speaking, that means that fewer than 1% of American guns are used in recorded crime or violence each year. Most of America’s hundreds of millions of guns are sitting in gun safes, being used for target practice or hunting, and causing no harm at all.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
After the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, pollsters asked if Americans thought gun crime was increasing or decreasing. 56% said gun crime had gone up over the past two decades. Only 12% knew the truth: gun murders had dropped by nearly 50% since the early 1990s. Over the same time period, Americans bought an estimated 70 million more guns.
This trend isn’t proof that more guns equal less crime—many factors drove a spike in gun violence in the early 1990s, and a drop afterwards. But it does show that the relationship between America’s high gun ownership rates and its high gun murder rates is more complex than a simple correlation.
GQ 1) Did you know that direct deaths of Nuclear Bombs in WW2 were only around 200k? That amounts to only about 1% of all losses ok WW2. Banning nuclear weapons therefore has no impact whatsoever. 2) Yeah, i'll give you that. A dedicated hunter might have quite a few rifles/shotguns. It get's ridiculous when someone has 10 pistols for "home protection" or a semi automatic long rifle against those - to quote a great pc game classic - really aggressive deer. 3. Did you know that the majority of all knives in America are not used in Crimes? Roughly speaking,fewer then 0,00001 percent of all knives are used in recorded crime or violence each year. True fact. 4. Violent crimes dropped statistically globally since the 1990 by 50 %. The USA is absolutely no outlier in this regard. Good job USA. How exactly are you allowed to call us out for using "wrong" statistics and emotional responses to the problem if this is what you refer to? Nobody believes banning semi automatic long rifles will stop gun violence. It will take away a toy that has no objective value for society but enables people to kill 50 people in a span of minutes. The second point is irrelevant. If your society treats hunting as a hobby like bowling, that's fine. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though. You could pass legislation that limits the ability to hoard them. If your society decides it doesn't want "owning weapons" on a level of owning shoes then suddenly 17 again is a lot. Three and four are simply using statistics that suit the NRA agenda and say them with enough confidence so that the own people believe it. There is nothing else to it. The thread has now passed on though and some of the ideas here are good starting points. Banning all magazines with capacieties greater 10 is for example a good idea. The problem stays that you already have too many guns with high capacity magazines though. Needing reasons for something is fine as well, just treat it with a hint of computer game balance. You are only allowed to have x weapons of type y. Choose wisely. As your life progresses you can of course change your choice. Means, if you wanna buy a "hunting weapon", the clerk will tell you that you already own a double barrel shotgun and a remington. If you now want a third, you have to give back one of the other. And when you want a new pistol, bring back your old. You lost your pistol, okay, sir, please pay a fine that is higher then the purchase of a new one. You want to own a pumpgun? Sir, that is a military grade weapon, you don't need that much weapon for hunting or self defense. 1.) Maybe you would need to be an American to hear the familiar call to ban assault weapons in the wake of every school shooting. The comparison to nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense here. People think the deadliest mass shooting was with an AR-15, instead of the actual two pistols that were used. 3) Maybe your point is to ban knives in the hopes that criminals will get less of them. 4) You would think from media reports that the country is witnessing unprecedented levels of gun violence, caused by lax gun laws. This is untrue. The fact that you’re fighting this shows ignorance or perversity. It still remains that the loudest voices are the most uninformed ones on this topic. When you hear facts you don’t like, don’t be that guy that assumes the side they lend credence to invalidates the statistic. These are ground rules for the debates that everybody should know ... but certain Europeans and American leftists want to cover their eyes. You have got to hear both sides to actually claim to think. I’m not talking about hearing that the media says about the NRA amounts to hearing both sides. That’s foolishness. 1) No. BAnning semi automatic long rifles is a reasonable start because those weapons have the worst usefulness to threat ratio. It's like claiming that people should be allowed to attach spinning blades to their monster tracks because most deaths by a vehicle was in fact done by a Prius without spinning blades. The argument that semi automatic long rifles are not the problem because pistols are a worse problem is not an argument. Society has a history of allowing stuff that it shouldn't if it creates some kind of benefit to society. I don't agree on that, but one could say small firearms have value for american society because if everyone has one, everyone can defend itself and his/her property against everyone else. We accept this as a benefit. Pistols are the prius that can be used to cause death, but we accept that because it also grants us mobility. The AR-15 however is a solution to a problem that does not exist in civil society. It is a "fun" weapon and fun is usually not enough to counter the threat something has to society. 3) No, my point is that this statistic is fucking stupid. surprisingly, the percentage of guns used for violent gun crime is limited to the percentage of vieloent gun crime in your country, no matter how many guns you own. If you are saturated on guns, like you are, increasing that number times 2 means the number of weapons used for violence has just dropped magically by half. Even in the US the number of violent crimes is low enough to only amout to 1% of all guns, which seems really low, which is whiy it was said in the first place. 4) I never fought this. Start responding to what i say and not what youz want me to have said to fir your narrative. The murder rates of all OECD countries dropped massively over the last 3 decades. It's a global phenomenon probably caused by changes in demographics or economy or social structure common everywhere. The fact that the source you are quoting uses this fact to try and sell this as a reason why gun control cannot work and then you blame me and call me ignorant and perverse because i am fighting facts? WHAT THE FUCK?? You have voted for the guy that said America is a zombieapocalypse and onle he can bring law and order back. All i have ever read here on this forum is people complaining that gun rampages are not being addressed now and have not been addressed for years. That is something different then claiming the murder rate went up. That is what your president said, whom you defend whenever you have the chance. 1. semi-automatic rifles are probably the best weapon for home defence. pistols lack power but are also more difficult to shoot. shotguns are heavy recoiling, especially for female or younger shooters. semi auto carbines match the stopping power of a rifle round with the controllability of an intermediate rifle round (5.56) Make the gun automatic then, even better for home defence because the spraying allows for even completely untrained people to sometimes land a lucky hit. You can't have both the "weapons are the great equalizer which is why we need them to defend ourselves" argument and the but untrained people need easier weapons to shoot with argument. Whith enough training, 9mm pistols are easy enough to use that women and children are able to defend themselves from any equally trained thread, no matter the physical attributes involved. If skill suddenly plays a role, the untrained homedefender will simply lose to the skilled home invader again and the gun used is completely irrelevant. the issue has nothing to do with training or lack of. ar-15s are simply easier to handle and are more powerful than handguns. according to your logic, special forces don't need rifles, because they have enough training to be effective with a 9mm pistol. of course skill makes a difference. the idea is that the home defender should have as much advantage over the invader. it's not a fair fight and shouldn't be a fair fight. your facetious comment about making the gun automatic is pretty see-through, but i'll bite. one advantage of a rifle is it is inherently more accurate. which means fewer missed shots. which means less risk of collateral damage. making a gun automatic defeats that entire purpose. nobody whose life depends on it will choose automatic fire.
Well, again, if it's just about giving the most power the the home defender, give them grenades. guided missile systems. Let me kill someone with a sniper rifle 200 meters away because that gives me the most advantage. Give them what real soldiers are using. WHich by the way, has automatic fire, but i guess they don't use it because it's not efficient enough. You can't have both. Either you want the most efficient weapon for home defense or you realise that you shouldn't beusing the most efficient weapon for home defense because that would be bad for your neighbourhood. So what is it, most efficient self defense or a reasonably sufficient self defense to minimize negative impact on you, your loved ones and neighbours?
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On February 22 2018 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
Someone forgive me if this is stupid, but:
What about tranquilizers? Do movies misrepresent tranquilizers? Do people actually take a long time to go down? It looks like tranquilizers take you down pretty quick. Would a gun that shoots tranquilizers be worse than a gun that makes people bleed? Yes and yes. They take a long time to work and you are equally likely to kill the person. Welp, never mind then. I just can't help but think there must be some alternative. But I imagine people smarter than me have pondered this question before.
The best alternatives are hardening your home's entry points in other ways. Securing windows and doors, upgrading locks, adding an alarm system, owning a dog etc. This reduces the likelihood of a criminal choosing to enter your home while you are there. In fact, even someone defending their home with a firearm should do this.
In terms of tools for directly confronting a home invader, probably the most important thing is being able to do stop them quickly and do so with minimal collateral damage or chance of overpenetration into other rooms of the house. For this, the small-but-fast .223 bullets of the AR-15 are ideal. The AR-15 is a 2-handed gun and therefore easier to aim and operate, and its bullets, after striking the first layer of drywall, tumble instead of continue straight, making it less likely that a missed bullet will go into another room and strike a family member. On top of that, .223 bullets are less likely to overpenetrate a person if you successfully strike them compared to a high-caliber handgun.
On February 22 2018 02:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:02 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 01:58 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 01:41 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 00:09 Danglars wrote:On February 21 2018 23:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns:
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on “assault weapons,” the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. Even the Democratic staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.
There’s some evidence that banning high-capacity ammunition magazines might—over the very long term—reduce gun injuries. But a ban on the guns themselves “does nothing,” a former Obama administration official said last year. Though the White House endorsed a renewed ban after Sandy Hook, “we did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”
The real effect of Democrats’ decades-long war on “assault weapons,” some advocates speculate, is that it’s simply made military-style guns more popular.
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. (There’s no official national count. Gun rights advocates are fiercely private about gun ownership and fear that if the government can track guns, it will be able to confiscate them.) Gun control advocates often note that America’s gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, and that this drives an overall murder rate than is 7 times higher than other rich countries.
But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence. About 100,000 Americans are killed or violently injured with guns each year—a number that includes gun suicides. The total number of crimes involving guns is higher: as many as 500,000 a year, according to Justice Department estimates.
Roughly speaking, that means that fewer than 1% of American guns are used in recorded crime or violence each year. Most of America’s hundreds of millions of guns are sitting in gun safes, being used for target practice or hunting, and causing no harm at all.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
After the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, pollsters asked if Americans thought gun crime was increasing or decreasing. 56% said gun crime had gone up over the past two decades. Only 12% knew the truth: gun murders had dropped by nearly 50% since the early 1990s. Over the same time period, Americans bought an estimated 70 million more guns.
This trend isn’t proof that more guns equal less crime—many factors drove a spike in gun violence in the early 1990s, and a drop afterwards. But it does show that the relationship between America’s high gun ownership rates and its high gun murder rates is more complex than a simple correlation.
GQ 1) Did you know that direct deaths of Nuclear Bombs in WW2 were only around 200k? That amounts to only about 1% of all losses ok WW2. Banning nuclear weapons therefore has no impact whatsoever. 2) Yeah, i'll give you that. A dedicated hunter might have quite a few rifles/shotguns. It get's ridiculous when someone has 10 pistols for "home protection" or a semi automatic long rifle against those - to quote a great pc game classic - really aggressive deer. 3. Did you know that the majority of all knives in America are not used in Crimes? Roughly speaking,fewer then 0,00001 percent of all knives are used in recorded crime or violence each year. True fact. 4. Violent crimes dropped statistically globally since the 1990 by 50 %. The USA is absolutely no outlier in this regard. Good job USA. How exactly are you allowed to call us out for using "wrong" statistics and emotional responses to the problem if this is what you refer to? Nobody believes banning semi automatic long rifles will stop gun violence. It will take away a toy that has no objective value for society but enables people to kill 50 people in a span of minutes. The second point is irrelevant. If your society treats hunting as a hobby like bowling, that's fine. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though. You could pass legislation that limits the ability to hoard them. If your society decides it doesn't want "owning weapons" on a level of owning shoes then suddenly 17 again is a lot. Three and four are simply using statistics that suit the NRA agenda and say them with enough confidence so that the own people believe it. There is nothing else to it. The thread has now passed on though and some of the ideas here are good starting points. Banning all magazines with capacieties greater 10 is for example a good idea. The problem stays that you already have too many guns with high capacity magazines though. Needing reasons for something is fine as well, just treat it with a hint of computer game balance. You are only allowed to have x weapons of type y. Choose wisely. As your life progresses you can of course change your choice. Means, if you wanna buy a "hunting weapon", the clerk will tell you that you already own a double barrel shotgun and a remington. If you now want a third, you have to give back one of the other. And when you want a new pistol, bring back your old. You lost your pistol, okay, sir, please pay a fine that is higher then the purchase of a new one. You want to own a pumpgun? Sir, that is a military grade weapon, you don't need that much weapon for hunting or self defense. 1.) Maybe you would need to be an American to hear the familiar call to ban assault weapons in the wake of every school shooting. The comparison to nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense here. People think the deadliest mass shooting was with an AR-15, instead of the actual two pistols that were used. 3) Maybe your point is to ban knives in the hopes that criminals will get less of them. 4) You would think from media reports that the country is witnessing unprecedented levels of gun violence, caused by lax gun laws. This is untrue. The fact that you’re fighting this shows ignorance or perversity. It still remains that the loudest voices are the most uninformed ones on this topic. When you hear facts you don’t like, don’t be that guy that assumes the side they lend credence to invalidates the statistic. These are ground rules for the debates that everybody should know ... but certain Europeans and American leftists want to cover their eyes. You have got to hear both sides to actually claim to think. I’m not talking about hearing that the media says about the NRA amounts to hearing both sides. That’s foolishness. 1) No. BAnning semi automatic long rifles is a reasonable start because those weapons have the worst usefulness to threat ratio. It's like claiming that people should be allowed to attach spinning blades to their monster tracks because most deaths by a vehicle was in fact done by a Prius without spinning blades. The argument that semi automatic long rifles are not the problem because pistols are a worse problem is not an argument. Society has a history of allowing stuff that it shouldn't if it creates some kind of benefit to society. I don't agree on that, but one could say small firearms have value for american society because if everyone has one, everyone can defend itself and his/her property against everyone else. We accept this as a benefit. Pistols are the prius that can be used to cause death, but we accept that because it also grants us mobility. The AR-15 however is a solution to a problem that does not exist in civil society. It is a "fun" weapon and fun is usually not enough to counter the threat something has to society. 3) No, my point is that this statistic is fucking stupid. surprisingly, the percentage of guns used for violent gun crime is limited to the percentage of vieloent gun crime in your country, no matter how many guns you own. If you are saturated on guns, like you are, increasing that number times 2 means the number of weapons used for violence has just dropped magically by half. Even in the US the number of violent crimes is low enough to only amout to 1% of all guns, which seems really low, which is whiy it was said in the first place. 4) I never fought this. Start responding to what i say and not what youz want me to have said to fir your narrative. The murder rates of all OECD countries dropped massively over the last 3 decades. It's a global phenomenon probably caused by changes in demographics or economy or social structure common everywhere. The fact that the source you are quoting uses this fact to try and sell this as a reason why gun control cannot work and then you blame me and call me ignorant and perverse because i am fighting facts? WHAT THE FUCK?? You have voted for the guy that said America is a zombieapocalypse and onle he can bring law and order back. All i have ever read here on this forum is people complaining that gun rampages are not being addressed now and have not been addressed for years. That is something different then claiming the murder rate went up. That is what your president said, whom you defend whenever you have the chance. 1. semi-automatic rifles are probably the best weapon for home defence. pistols lack power but are also more difficult to shoot. shotguns are heavy recoiling, especially for female or younger shooters. semi auto carbines match the stopping power of a rifle round with the controllability of an intermediate rifle round (5.56) Make the gun automatic then, even better for home defence because the spraying allows for even completely untrained people to sometimes land a lucky hit. You can't have both the "weapons are the great equalizer which is why we need them to defend ourselves" argument and the but untrained people need easier weapons to shoot with argument. Whith enough training, 9mm pistols are easy enough to use that women and children are able to defend themselves from any equally trained thread, no matter the physical attributes involved. If skill suddenly plays a role, the untrained homedefender will simply lose to the skilled home invader again and the gun used is completely irrelevant. the issue has nothing to do with training or lack of. ar-15s are simply easier to handle and are more powerful than handguns. according to your logic, special forces don't need rifles, because they have enough training to be effective with a 9mm pistol. of course skill makes a difference. the idea is that the home defender should have as much advantage over the invader. it's not a fair fight and shouldn't be a fair fight. your facetious comment about making the gun automatic is pretty see-through, but i'll bite. one advantage of a rifle is it is inherently more accurate. which means fewer missed shots. which means less risk of collateral damage. making a gun automatic defeats that entire purpose. nobody whose life depends on it will choose automatic fire. Well, again, if it's just about giving the most power the the home defender, give them grenades. guided missile systems. Let me kill someone with a sniper rifle 200 meters away because that gives me the most advantage. Give them what real soldiers are using. WHich by the way, has automatic fire, but i guess they don't use it because it's not efficient enough. You can't have both. Either you want the most efficient weapon for home defense or you realise that you shouldn't beusing the most efficient weapon for home defense because that would be bad for your neighbourhood. So what is it, most efficient self defense or a reasonably sufficient self defense to minimize negative impact on you, your loved ones and neighbours?
A .50 rifle or a full-auto rifle both have significant downsides compared to a .223 semi-auto AR-15, due to the increased likelihood of missing and the bigger chance of overpenetration and striking one of your family members. Grenades and Missiles are also likely to be pretty bad for this reason, though perhaps a flashbang grenade would be useful. If for some reason I needed a rifle for home defense and had these various options you describe, I would choose an AR-15 over a .50 rifle, an explosive device, or a full-auto rifle.
|
On February 22 2018 02:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 02:02 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 01:58 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 01:41 ahswtini wrote:On February 22 2018 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 22 2018 00:09 Danglars wrote:On February 21 2018 23:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns:
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on “assault weapons,” the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. Even the Democratic staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.
There’s some evidence that banning high-capacity ammunition magazines might—over the very long term—reduce gun injuries. But a ban on the guns themselves “does nothing,” a former Obama administration official said last year. Though the White House endorsed a renewed ban after Sandy Hook, “we did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”
The real effect of Democrats’ decades-long war on “assault weapons,” some advocates speculate, is that it’s simply made military-style guns more popular.
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. (There’s no official national count. Gun rights advocates are fiercely private about gun ownership and fear that if the government can track guns, it will be able to confiscate them.) Gun control advocates often note that America’s gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, and that this drives an overall murder rate than is 7 times higher than other rich countries.
But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence. About 100,000 Americans are killed or violently injured with guns each year—a number that includes gun suicides. The total number of crimes involving guns is higher: as many as 500,000 a year, according to Justice Department estimates.
Roughly speaking, that means that fewer than 1% of American guns are used in recorded crime or violence each year. Most of America’s hundreds of millions of guns are sitting in gun safes, being used for target practice or hunting, and causing no harm at all.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
After the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, pollsters asked if Americans thought gun crime was increasing or decreasing. 56% said gun crime had gone up over the past two decades. Only 12% knew the truth: gun murders had dropped by nearly 50% since the early 1990s. Over the same time period, Americans bought an estimated 70 million more guns.
This trend isn’t proof that more guns equal less crime—many factors drove a spike in gun violence in the early 1990s, and a drop afterwards. But it does show that the relationship between America’s high gun ownership rates and its high gun murder rates is more complex than a simple correlation.
GQ 1) Did you know that direct deaths of Nuclear Bombs in WW2 were only around 200k? That amounts to only about 1% of all losses ok WW2. Banning nuclear weapons therefore has no impact whatsoever. 2) Yeah, i'll give you that. A dedicated hunter might have quite a few rifles/shotguns. It get's ridiculous when someone has 10 pistols for "home protection" or a semi automatic long rifle against those - to quote a great pc game classic - really aggressive deer. 3. Did you know that the majority of all knives in America are not used in Crimes? Roughly speaking,fewer then 0,00001 percent of all knives are used in recorded crime or violence each year. True fact. 4. Violent crimes dropped statistically globally since the 1990 by 50 %. The USA is absolutely no outlier in this regard. Good job USA. How exactly are you allowed to call us out for using "wrong" statistics and emotional responses to the problem if this is what you refer to? Nobody believes banning semi automatic long rifles will stop gun violence. It will take away a toy that has no objective value for society but enables people to kill 50 people in a span of minutes. The second point is irrelevant. If your society treats hunting as a hobby like bowling, that's fine. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though. You could pass legislation that limits the ability to hoard them. If your society decides it doesn't want "owning weapons" on a level of owning shoes then suddenly 17 again is a lot. Three and four are simply using statistics that suit the NRA agenda and say them with enough confidence so that the own people believe it. There is nothing else to it. The thread has now passed on though and some of the ideas here are good starting points. Banning all magazines with capacieties greater 10 is for example a good idea. The problem stays that you already have too many guns with high capacity magazines though. Needing reasons for something is fine as well, just treat it with a hint of computer game balance. You are only allowed to have x weapons of type y. Choose wisely. As your life progresses you can of course change your choice. Means, if you wanna buy a "hunting weapon", the clerk will tell you that you already own a double barrel shotgun and a remington. If you now want a third, you have to give back one of the other. And when you want a new pistol, bring back your old. You lost your pistol, okay, sir, please pay a fine that is higher then the purchase of a new one. You want to own a pumpgun? Sir, that is a military grade weapon, you don't need that much weapon for hunting or self defense. 1.) Maybe you would need to be an American to hear the familiar call to ban assault weapons in the wake of every school shooting. The comparison to nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense here. People think the deadliest mass shooting was with an AR-15, instead of the actual two pistols that were used. 3) Maybe your point is to ban knives in the hopes that criminals will get less of them. 4) You would think from media reports that the country is witnessing unprecedented levels of gun violence, caused by lax gun laws. This is untrue. The fact that you’re fighting this shows ignorance or perversity. It still remains that the loudest voices are the most uninformed ones on this topic. When you hear facts you don’t like, don’t be that guy that assumes the side they lend credence to invalidates the statistic. These are ground rules for the debates that everybody should know ... but certain Europeans and American leftists want to cover their eyes. You have got to hear both sides to actually claim to think. I’m not talking about hearing that the media says about the NRA amounts to hearing both sides. That’s foolishness. 1) No. BAnning semi automatic long rifles is a reasonable start because those weapons have the worst usefulness to threat ratio. It's like claiming that people should be allowed to attach spinning blades to their monster tracks because most deaths by a vehicle was in fact done by a Prius without spinning blades. The argument that semi automatic long rifles are not the problem because pistols are a worse problem is not an argument. Society has a history of allowing stuff that it shouldn't if it creates some kind of benefit to society. I don't agree on that, but one could say small firearms have value for american society because if everyone has one, everyone can defend itself and his/her property against everyone else. We accept this as a benefit. Pistols are the prius that can be used to cause death, but we accept that because it also grants us mobility. The AR-15 however is a solution to a problem that does not exist in civil society. It is a "fun" weapon and fun is usually not enough to counter the threat something has to society. 3) No, my point is that this statistic is fucking stupid. surprisingly, the percentage of guns used for violent gun crime is limited to the percentage of vieloent gun crime in your country, no matter how many guns you own. If you are saturated on guns, like you are, increasing that number times 2 means the number of weapons used for violence has just dropped magically by half. Even in the US the number of violent crimes is low enough to only amout to 1% of all guns, which seems really low, which is whiy it was said in the first place. 4) I never fought this. Start responding to what i say and not what youz want me to have said to fir your narrative. The murder rates of all OECD countries dropped massively over the last 3 decades. It's a global phenomenon probably caused by changes in demographics or economy or social structure common everywhere. The fact that the source you are quoting uses this fact to try and sell this as a reason why gun control cannot work and then you blame me and call me ignorant and perverse because i am fighting facts? WHAT THE FUCK?? You have voted for the guy that said America is a zombieapocalypse and onle he can bring law and order back. All i have ever read here on this forum is people complaining that gun rampages are not being addressed now and have not been addressed for years. That is something different then claiming the murder rate went up. That is what your president said, whom you defend whenever you have the chance. 1. semi-automatic rifles are probably the best weapon for home defence. pistols lack power but are also more difficult to shoot. shotguns are heavy recoiling, especially for female or younger shooters. semi auto carbines match the stopping power of a rifle round with the controllability of an intermediate rifle round (5.56) Make the gun automatic then, even better for home defence because the spraying allows for even completely untrained people to sometimes land a lucky hit. You can't have both the "weapons are the great equalizer which is why we need them to defend ourselves" argument and the but untrained people need easier weapons to shoot with argument. Whith enough training, 9mm pistols are easy enough to use that women and children are able to defend themselves from any equally trained thread, no matter the physical attributes involved. If skill suddenly plays a role, the untrained homedefender will simply lose to the skilled home invader again and the gun used is completely irrelevant. the issue has nothing to do with training or lack of. ar-15s are simply easier to handle and are more powerful than handguns. according to your logic, special forces don't need rifles, because they have enough training to be effective with a 9mm pistol. of course skill makes a difference. the idea is that the home defender should have as much advantage over the invader. it's not a fair fight and shouldn't be a fair fight. your facetious comment about making the gun automatic is pretty see-through, but i'll bite. one advantage of a rifle is it is inherently more accurate. which means fewer missed shots. which means less risk of collateral damage. making a gun automatic defeats that entire purpose. nobody whose life depends on it will choose automatic fire. Well, again, if it's just about giving the most power the the home defender, give them grenades. guided missile systems. Let me kill someone with a sniper rifle 200 meters away because that gives me the most advantage. Give them what real soldiers are using. WHich by the way, has automatic fire, but i guess they don't use it because it's not efficient enough. You can't have both. Either you want the most efficient weapon for home defense or you realise that you shouldn't beusing the most efficient weapon for home defense because that would be bad for your neighbourhood. So what is it, most efficient self defense or a reasonably sufficient self defense to minimize negative impact on you, your loved ones and neighbours?
I think you are misunderstanding his point. It is not about efficiency, its about usability and the risk of hurting someone else. Guns can be hard to use. Handguns are terrible self defense weapons unless you put in a lot of hours with them. They are small, often high recoil for their size and easy to lose control over in an intense situation. Long arms, like rifles, are better due to the size and form factor. But those guns normally shoot heavy, high caliber bullets that are meant for long range.
The AR-15 is designed in the form factor of a longarm, but shoots a smaller round. It is designed like a carbine, so it doesn’t have a lot of recoil as well. Now, its natural design with a 30 round clip is silly for civilian use, but the remaining design is fine. I would prefer a version be designed that had a fixed 7 round clip to make it less desirable for mass shootings. But the gun industry doesn’t really care about that kind of stuff.
|
What's the rate of crimes where an intruder chooses to enter a home while people are in it?
It seems so weird to worry about this, but I know nothing about these situations in the US. I would think thieves or criminals always would choose houses without people in it.
|
On February 22 2018 02:59 VHbb wrote:
What's the rate of crimes where an intruder chooses to enter a home while people are in it?
It seems so weird to worry about this, but I know nothing about these situations in the US. I would think thieves or criminals always would choose houses without people in it.
Extremely low. Most criminals have zero interest in a home invasion, or interacting with humans at all during the crime. But in contrast, those that due invade homes at night are far more likely to be super dangerous. Also, the vast majority of the US is rural with few police.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
Generally, burglars have a goal of avoiding seeing any humans. They just want to steal some stuff. The typical burglarly probably happens during the day when people are at work and therefore not home, as opposed to nighttime, when people are definitely home.
|
If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject.
|
The same logic can be applied to any dangerous tool. Which is why a few states require base fire arms classes to purchase a gun, just like a car or plane.
|
On February 22 2018 06:36 superstartran wrote:
If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject.
The country would be hundreds of times better off if the most voluminous voices against gun rights spent that time researching guns and taking gun safety/training classes as if they too owned one.
They we might get less noobs talking about land mines and full-auto weapons the second a regular guy points out the benefits of the AR-15 in lawful defense.
|
On February 22 2018 08:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 06:36 superstartran wrote:
If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject. The country would be hundreds of times better off if the most voluminous voices against gun rights spent that time researching guns and taking gun safety/training classes as if they too owned one. They we might get less noobs talking about land mines and full-auto weapons the second a regular guy points out the benefits of the AR-15 in lawful defense.
Calling people "noob" as if they don't understand that the AR-15 is a "good gun". Like that's the point here. Not that it's excessively good and can shoot people at distances where they're not a threat. No one specifically needs assault-rifles over smaller-arms to protect themselves. That's high-flying shitty fantasy.
"Noob". You're exactly the person whose guns I want to take away, Danglars. These aren't toys.
|
United States24579 Posts
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening.
|
Agree. But the constant refrain that anyone asking for stricter gun laws is uninformed harmful to the discussion. And it only comes from a couple posters. The remaining gun owners are able to ame more substantive arguments.
|
On February 22 2018 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening.
His point was very clear, and so was my response. His point was people arguing against the AR-15 don't understand the AR-15 properly. They're "noobs", which isn't so much "uncalled for" as it is childish. What -- and please be specific -- did I say, in my response, that proves I don't understand how an AR-15 works, that I was thus "proving his post"? What am I not understanding about the AR-15. I want to know. Specifically. Correct me in some way that might actually have meaning.
To suggest that an AR-15 is needed, to protect one's self, over smaller fire-arms is, I'll repeat, high-flying shitty fantasy. When people stop being absurd, I'll stop calling them such.
And if you're going to use a term like "noob" about people discussing these weapons, I'm going to call you out on it. It completely signifies the glorification behind all this.
|
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable.
|
On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable.
I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power".
Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun.
And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? It doesn't really matter. The caliber kills. Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance. It was designed for that purpose. Assault. Not defense.
|
On February 22 2018 09:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable. I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power". Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun. And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance.
The AR-15 is not a long range rifle. It's bullets lack the mass. It was modeled after the M-16, but shoots a smaller bullet.(sort of, there are a lot of models of M-16). It is closer to an m-4 than anything else, which shoot not very big bullets and is designed for urban combat. It's clip size is its main problem and the fact that you can so easily reload it.
You need something that shoots a 7.62 bullet, like this classic if you want to shoot far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield
|
United States24579 Posts
Okay, I'll make a small list.
- Using 'goodness' as a characteristic of guns. In fact, some are excessively good.
- Relating the effective range of a firearm to its suitability as a defensive weapon.
- Using the term 'assault-file' improperly. Perhaps if you shared the definition you are using it would help at least.
- Using the term 'smaller arms' in a confusing way. "Small" means something different when referring to firearms.
- Referring to dissenting views as 'high-flying shitty fantasy' rather than an incorrect view.
- Taking issue with 'stopping power' even though it is extremely important when evaluating a firearm for suitability for home defense.
- Referring to bullet speed as a concern without referencing the mass or momentum (22 target rifles shoot very fast bullets but so what).
- Implying that accuracy is a feature to avoid in defensive firearms.
- Implying that the simulated fully-auto capability granted by a bumpstock is trivial when compared to otherwise available actions, even though this is false in some situations such as the Las Vegas shooting.
- Saying caliber doesn't matter for defensive weapons
- Conflating assault style weapons which are based on designs to stop/wound vice kill targets with battle rifles or sniper rifles which are designed to kill.
- Not addressing magazine size at all.
That's just based on the past few posts on this page. You could probably nitpick the list and find something where I goofed, but the overall trend here is that you have very little idea what you are talking about, and deep down I think you realize this but decided it doesn't matter.
|
I've shot an M-4. It might surprise you.
An M-4 is a long-range rifle. It's bullets travel 4-5 times faster than a similar caliber handgun. It is the most common rifle in our Army. Why is that a good comparison?
|
On February 22 2018 09:53 micronesia wrote:Okay, I'll make a small list. - Using 'goodness' as a characteristic of guns. In fact, some are excessively good.
- Relating the effective range of a firearm to its suitability as a defensive weapon.
- Using the term 'assault-file' improperly. Perhaps if you shared the definition you are using it would help at least.
- Using the term 'smaller arms' in a confusing way. "Small" means something different when referring to firearms.
- Referring to dissenting views as 'high-flying shitty fantasy' rather than an incorrect view.
- Taking issue with 'stopping power' even though it is extremely important when evaluating a firearm for suitability for home defense.
- Referring to bullet speed as a concern without referencing the mass or momentum (22 target rifles shoot very fast bullets but so what).
- Implying that accuracy is a feature to avoid in defensive firearms.
- Implying that the simulated fully-auto capability granted by a bumpstock is trivial when compared to otherwise available actions, even though this is false in some situations such as the Las Vegas shooting.
- Saying caliber doesn't matter for defensive weapons
- Conflating assault style weapons which are based on designs to stop/wound vice kill targets with battle rifles or sniper rifles which are designed to kill.
- Not addressing magazine size at all.
That's just based on the past few posts on this page. You could probably nitpick the list and find something where I goofed, but the overall trend here is that you have very little idea what you are talking about, and deep down I think you realize this but decided it doesn't matter.
You're a mod? Jesus Christ.
What about magazine-sizes? What about them? What do they to do with the AR-15 specifically? Lots of guns can carry magazine of all kinds. That isn't a specific issue to assault rifles. Your list is just throwing a bunch of random shit at me.
|
United States24579 Posts
Judging from the timestamps you made that post before fully reading the list. I give up. To be honest, I was 99.9% sure it would be a wasted effort.
And I do not mod this thread since I sometimes get personally involved in the discussions including my personal views (and of course not the views of tl).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
