| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
|
Hawkeye
Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/04/17 12:05 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
"Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress."
That right there invalidates her argument. After Australia got rid of them, there weren't any more...she's ignoring success to push a point.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 1:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| She said that they were too rare to begin with for the buyback program to evidence of progress. How does this invalidate her argument?
|
|
Hawkeye
Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 4:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Too rare AFTER the buyback--meaning after the buyback there weren't enough mass shootings to show any type of pattern...MEANING, the buyback and subsequent gun control laws WORKED.....that makes her argument invalid.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/04/17 10:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths. |
In my opinion, the meaning of this sentence is that mass shootings were too rare in Australia before the buybacks to evaluate the statistical effect of the buyback program. The author is a statistician. Her overall argument in the column is that, with respect to several of the most popular gun control proposals, there are insufficient pre vs. post hoc data to demonstrate that the proposals have been or would be effective. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 12:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Sadly, and astonishingly, these mass shootings get the gun nuts to push through less gun control. The Atlantic had an article detailing the changes since the Sandy Hook massacre of kids. All loosening of gun rules. Apparently we will get to the low gun violence of Europe by having way more guns than them.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 9:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Sadly, and astonishingly, these mass shootings get the gun nuts to push through less gun control. The Atlantic had an article detailing the changes since the Sandy Hook massacre of kids. All loosening of gun rules. Apparently we will get to the low gun violence of Europe by having way more guns than them. |
What are "gun nuts" and exactly what did they "push through" a Democrat Senate and an anti-gun, pen-wielding President Obama? Not saying you're wrong, but just curious, since you're making specific claims. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 10:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Sadly, and astonishingly, these mass shootings get the gun nuts to push through less gun control. The Atlantic had an article detailing the changes since the Sandy Hook massacre of kids. All loosening of gun rules. Apparently we will get to the low gun violence of Europe by having way more guns than them. |
What are "gun nuts" and exactly what did they "push through" a Democrat Senate and an anti-gun, pen-wielding President Obama? Not saying you're wrong, but just curious, since you're making specific claims. |
There are state and local gun laws. Here's the article I referred to: Mass Shootings Don't Lead to Inaction - They Lead to Loosening Gun Restrictions. Gun nuts are people who buy more than one gun and/or want assault rifles to be legal and/or go to gun shows.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Sadly, and astonishingly, these mass shootings get the gun nuts to push through less gun control. The Atlantic had an article detailing the changes since the Sandy Hook massacre of kids. All loosening of gun rules. Apparently we will get to the low gun violence of Europe by having way more guns than them. |
What are "gun nuts" and exactly what did they "push through" a Democrat Senate and an anti-gun, pen-wielding President Obama? Not saying you're wrong, but just curious, since you're making specific claims. |
There are state and local gun laws. Here's the article I referred to: Mass Shootings Don't Lead to Inaction - They Lead to Loosening Gun Restrictions. Gun nuts are people who buy more than one gun and/or want assault rifles to be legal and/or go to gun shows. |
That article does not support a claim, in my interpretation, that federal or state governments generally loosened gun control laws after Sandy Hook -- by which I specifically mean laws that restrict who can have access to guns and what kind of guns (and ammo). With one exception, the specific examples given in the article concern: (1) already legal gun owners with already legal guns voluntarily carrying them more often in already legal places; or (2) opening up formerly gun restricted premises to legal carry by already legal gun owners with already legal guns, because those places have become the easiest "killing fields" for mass murderers/terrorists, such as school grounds, college campuses and bars.
This is just common sense regarding the deterrent value of self-defense. Many if not most of the mass murder events since the rise of ISIS have been in gun free zones at schools, colleges, bars, military bases, and in countries with very strict gun laws. The less likely that citizens are to be armed in a given venue, the more likely the criminal will attack, prey on or burglarize that venue. And vice versa. Increasing the probability (even if not the actuality) of a legally armed citizenry in venues where there are children and vulnerable adults, employs the same empirically proven and common sense logic that an increased armed presence at the border, or even the perception thereof, will deter illegal immigration. |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 9:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Gun nuts are people who buy more than one gun and/or want assault rifles to be legal and/or go to gun shows. |
I would say that's a pretty extreme point of view. By your definition, anyone who chooses to hunt for food or sport is a "gun nut." As well as anyone in law enforcement, anyone who chooses to defend their family, or anyone who has ever attended a gun show is a nut? What about hobbyists? The ratio of gun owners who have more than one gun vs those who only have one is probably like 90 to 1.
I've asked this question of others but never got a response, so I'll ask you this... what do you consider an assault weapon, and why?
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Gun nuts are people who buy more than one gun and/or want assault rifles to be legal and/or go to gun shows. |
I would say that's a pretty extreme point of view. By your definition, anyone who chooses to hunt for food or sport is a "gun nut." As well as anyone in law enforcement, anyone who chooses to defend their family, or anyone who has ever attended a gun show is a nut? What about hobbyists? The ratio of gun owners who have more than one gun vs those who only have one is probably like 90 to 1.
I've asked this question of others but never got a response, so I'll ask you this... what do you consider an assault weapon, and why? |
You only need one gun to hunt for food and one gun to protect your family. Cops have guns as part of their job, their gun nuttiness would be on their personal collection. What is the definition of a "gun hobbyist"?
I have no knowledge of guns.Whatever Congress banned when they temporarily banned assault weapons would work for me.
I would limit the number of bullets people could own to single digits. Any replacement would require spent evidence the others were used at firing range or in self-defense crime report. Hunters would need to bring along monitors.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| I have no knowledge of guns.Whatever Congress banned when they temporarily banned assault weapons would work for me. |
That ban was completely ineffectual. The Colombine massacre happened right in the middle of its 10 year existence.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I said state and local, the author never did. Just that laws would be made more permissive. Allowing guns in public places is double sided. Good guys can bring in, bad guys can bring in. Better to develop technology that let's no one bring in. Right now it is a pain getting into a courthouse or airport with current technology. But handguns (easily concealed) need to be banned unless life threats being made.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Many if not most of the mass murder events since the rise of ISIS |
Rise of ISIS? Was Dillon Roof ISIS? Was Sandy Hook ISIS? Was the guy at the southern Oregon JC ISIS? Why mention ISIS with regard to USA mass killings? Plenty of fired workers, denied Phd candidates, ex-husbands doing mass killings.
Outlaw handguns. Limit rifle to one, bullets to 6. Put up metal detectors that block admittance when they go off.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
And I say this every time the subject comes up: focusing on mass murders is a bad reason for gun control.
Mass murder events are huge, they are shocking, and they get the country's attention. But they are not really the major risk that Americans face from guns.
Some nutjob with an assault rifle mowing down people by the score is not where most gun deaths occur, even if you exclude the gang related killings. No, what scares me most, and what should scare others, is the normal, small clip (or perhaps even six shot) handgun in the hands of every day Americans. People get angry or afraid, and when they get angry or afraid they do stupid shit that they otherwise wouldn't do. That domestic assault? Because there was a gun present it is now a homicide. My neighbor pissed off because I keep playing my music loud all night long and my dog keeps shitting on his lawn? With a gun present, the danger escalates. I'm feeling depressed, like there is nothing left for me to live for...that gun gives little chance for intervention. I hear a bump in the night, it sounds like someone is breaking in, and in the dark I don't see it is my son who snuck out to go to a party returning home. That gun I have for protection? Oops.
Seriously, that is the real everyday danger of an armed citizenry, not terrorism, not mass murderers. Yet we worry about assault rifles and big clips and bump stocks for the rare event and pat ourselves on the back like it fixes the actual issue.
Brett Stephens is actually onto something here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| I've asked this question of others but never got a response, so I'll ask you this... what do you consider an assault weapon, and why? |
You only need one gun to hunt for food and one gun to protect your family. Cops have guns as part of their job, their gun nuttiness would be on their personal collection. What is the definition of a "gun hobbyist"?
I have no knowledge of guns.Whatever Congress banned when they temporarily banned assault weapons would work for me.
I would limit the number of bullets people could own to single digits. Any replacement would require spent evidence the others were used at firing range or in self-defense crime report. Hunters would need to bring along monitors. |
But tfan, you can't say that you only need one gun to hunt and another for protection without a knowledge of guns. Even in hunting, you need different rifles for different situations. The same goes for personal protection. Some concealed carry weapons are too bulky to carry around unnoticed, but are perfect for home or business protection. A lot of people want to feel safe in public without giving up the ghost that you're carrying a gun.
I feel like you're sidestepping my question, but to answer yours: a hobbyist would be anyone who collects or builds. There's a big market for antiques. Other people such as myself like to fabricate their own or build from kits.
With regards to limiting the number of bullets you can own to single digits, sorry but they don't even sell boxes of ammo in the single digits. That would be absurd. Would the expectation be that you go to the range, fire off 6 shots and then you have to leave to go out and buy more ammo, 6 bullets at a time?
As far as bringing a monitor to go hunting, how much would that cost? We're over $20 trillion in debt. I don't think we need more public employees watching over us at a cost of $75K+ per year + benefits for each person that wants to go hunting.
As far as outlawing handguns, how many mass murders were committed with handguns? Zero?
You're right. You don't have to be a member of ISIS to go on a killing spree. You just have to be a criminal and ignore all the laws. Which renders all of your proposed changes to the law completely irrelevant. How about we just leave everything the way it is, and regulate stupid modifications like bump stocks, tactiskins and slide plungers instead?
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 1:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Right now it is a pain getting into a courthouse or airport with current technology. But handguns (easily concealed) need to be banned unless life threats being made. |
How often are you going in and out of airports and courthouses? Once or twice a year? Even if guns were banned completely, nothing is going to change there. You are still going to have to walk through a metal detector regardless.
John Stossel once did a piece on obtaining a gun permit in NYC. Not a gun, a gun permit. He demonstrated clear evidence that his life was in danger, and was still denied a permit. I ask you to find this video clip on YouTube. It will only take 15 minutes of your time.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 2:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
You only need one gun to hunt for food and one gun to protect your family. |
And golfers need only one club. Fisherman need only one lure. Carpenters need only one saw. Plumbers need only one wrench. A cook needs only one knife. A photographer needs only one lens. Families need only one vehicle. A child needs only one toy. WBB players need only one pair of sneakers. Bill Clinton needs only one condom.
| tfan wrote: |
| I have no knowledge of guns. |
I think you're being modest. But just in case, if you have a black bear on your property, as I did last week, don't try shooting it with a .22. Also, unless you're a crack shot like gun nut Annie Oakley, don't try shooting a flying duck with a 30.06 or a Glock. Finally, if your going to conceal carry the next time you're in the Crips neighborhood, a 12 gauge shotgun probably wouldn't work too well. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 3:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Plainly a hunter needs different guns for different game and different terrain.
But, every state of which I am aware has limits on magazine size for various game, typically about three rounds. So if by law I can only have three rounds in my .308 when I go deer hunting or in my 12 guage when goose hunting, why can I walk down the street with fifteen rounds in my AK-47 clone?
So why don't we put a three round limit on all guns at all times?
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 5:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Plainly a hunter needs different guns for different game and different terrain.
But, every state of which I am aware has limits on magazine size for various game, typically about three rounds. So if by law I can only have three rounds in my .308 when I go deer hunting or in my 12 guage when goose hunting, why can I walk down the street with fifteen rounds in my AK-47 clone?
So why don't we put a three round limit on all guns at all times? |
Because then the Don't Tread On Me Patriots won't be able to defend themselves against the tryrannical U.S.. gov't, i.e., whenever we have a Dem POTUS.
Or whatever is their bs paranoid excuse.
Plus, how can we expect the paramilitary miltiia preppers to keep their virgin daughters safe from marauding non-white guys w/ 3-round clips? Geez.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Last edited by cthskzfn on 10/13/17 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 5:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| I've asked this question of others but never got a response, so I'll ask you this... what do you consider an assault weapon, and why? |
You only need one gun to hunt for food and one gun to protect your family. Cops have guns as part of their job, their gun nuttiness would be on their personal collection. What is the definition of a "gun hobbyist"?
I have no knowledge of guns.Whatever Congress banned when they temporarily banned assault weapons would work for me.
I would limit the number of bullets people could own to single digits. Any replacement would require spent evidence the others were used at firing range or in self-defense crime report. Hunters would need to bring along monitors. |
But tfan, you can't say that you only need one gun to hunt and another for protection without a knowledge of guns. Even in hunting, you need different rifles for different situations. The same goes for personal protection. Some concealed carry weapons are too bulky to carry around unnoticed, but are perfect for home or business protection. A lot of people want to feel safe in public without giving up the ghost that you're carrying a gun. |
One rifle in possession per adult citizen at any one time. Need to go hunting? Take your home rifle to the gun office and turn it in for your hunting rifle of choice. Don't want to show that you are carrying a gun - tough luck. Shoulder mounted rifles only. Be proud of your weapon and advertise it's presence.
| Quote: |
I feel like you're sidestepping my question, but to answer yours: a hobbyist would be anyone who collects or builds. There's a big market for antiques. Other people such as myself like to fabricate their own or build from kits. |
Hobbyists will need to transition to gun replicas only.
| Quote: |
With regards to limiting the number of bullets you can own to single digits, sorry but they don't even sell boxes of ammo in the single digits. That would be absurd. Would the expectation be that you go to the range, fire off 6 shots and then you have to leave to go out and buy more ammo, 6 bullets at a time? |
At a range you can buy more than 6, but are locked into the room until done and then any unused must be turned in to get out of the room as well as all spent bullets.
| Quote: |
| As far as bringing a monitor to go hunting, how much would that cost? We're over $20 trillion in debt. I don't think we need more public employees watching over us at a cost of $75K+ per year + benefits for each person that wants to go hunting. |
Hunters will pay for their monitor. No cost to public.
| Quote: |
As far as outlawing handguns, how many mass murders were committed with handguns? Zero? |
Mass murders are not the only type of murder. You wanna murder your ex-boss. Handgun will get you right to his office undetected.
| Quote: |
You're right. You don't have to be a member of ISIS to go on a killing spree. You just have to be a criminal and ignore all the laws. Which renders all of your proposed changes to the law completely irrelevant. How about we just leave everything the way it is, and regulate stupid modifications like bump stocks, tactiskins and slide plungers instead? |
Under what I said, killing spree limited to maximum 6 people by murderers (not "criminals")
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 5:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
You only need one gun to hunt for food and one gun to protect your family. |
And golfers need only one club. Fisherman need only one lure. Carpenters need only one saw. Plumbers need only one wrench. A cook needs only one knife. A photographer needs only one lens. Families need only one vehicle. A child needs only one toy. WBB players need only one pair of sneakers. Bill Clinton needs only one condom. |
Comparisons all fail the "is item designed to kill" test.
| Quote: |
Finally, if your going to conceal carry the next time you're in the Crips neighborhood, a 12 gauge shotgun probably wouldn't work too well. |
Reveal carry is better than conceal carry.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 5:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| *moved*
Last edited by tfan on 10/06/17 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 6:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
a hobbyist would be anyone who collects or builds. There's a big market for antiques. Other people such as myself like to fabricate their own or build from kits.
|
Too bad. Guess you'll have to take up crochet.
I'm sure fans of kiddy porn consider it a hobby too. That doesn't mean the government can't ban it. Actually they have a better position under the 1st amendment than gun nuts have under the 2nd.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 6:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
As far as outlawing handguns, how many mass murders were committed with handguns? Zero?
|
Wrong again. Congratulations.
The Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 and a Walther P22. There's probably others but I'm not bothering to look for more. You're already wrong.
Really, you need to stop watching Infowars and Breitbart and Newsmax.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/10/17 10:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Hunters will pay for their monitor. No cost to public. |
Let's indulge this proposition. Monitors are paid for at no cost to the public. How would these monitors be regulated? If someone wanted to go hunting and they "paid me" to go watch them, how do you know I actually went there, or that any money was exchanged? Wouldn't there need to be some oversight for this new regulation? Wouldn't there have to be some (many) paid officials that would need to be hired in order to see the process through? Or would this be based on the honor system? How much would this all cost? Someone has to pay the monitor. Someone would have to pay the regulators.
| tfan wrote: |
| Mass murders are not the only type of murder. You wanna murder your ex-boss. Handgun will get you right to his office undetected. |
So would a knife. A sword. A blunt force object. Poison. There are many ways to kill one person.
| tfan wrote: |
| Under what I said, killing spree limited to maximum 6 people by murderers (not "criminals") |
What I'm getting from this is that murderers are not criminals then?
Also, I'll ask this for the third time... What defines an assault weapon?
| tfan wrote: |
| Reveal carry is better than conceal carry |
I don't agree with that at all. Open carry draws a lot of unnecessary attention and fear. Open carry is legal where I live. Doesn't mean I would do it. Plenty of news articles you can read about people who open carried legally and were harrassed by police. Isn't police harrassment bad enough already?
|
|
|
|
