Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[DigitalChaos]

- They are utilizing the death of children to advance their personal legislation, not mitigate the issues.
-

Are you saying that they know their legislation won't really make any difference, but they're just seizing the opportunity to rally support for it?

yes. i listed that as one of the potential options. i am trying to identify all potential reasons.

I think they genuinely do believe it's an appropriate response

Well, then that would point toward my first point (they are incredibly uninformed on the topic). Unless you have another explanation for why someone would choose a path that is less effective and has much more resistance against you. (go back to the post you quoted if that doesn't make sense. I detailed the reasoning)

[DigitalChaos]

Stewart has regained my respect after that stupid hollow-point comment with this one (off-topic from the thread):
"Although obviously a Democratic Administration's Whitehouse secret war policy memos are very different from the Bush Administration's secret war policy memos in that I assume that the Democrats have written them on recycled paper." - Jon Stewart

[Presideo]

Stewart has regained my respect after that stupid hollow-point comment with this one (off-topic from the thread):
"Although obviously a Democratic Administration's Whitehouse secret war policy memos are very different from the Bush Administration's secret war policy memos in that I assume that the Democrats have written them on recycled paper." - Jon Stewart

It's good that you commend someone when they corroborate with your ideals, then bash them when they don't. No way anyone can call you insular and biased.

As for the vids of the indie guy with chic glasses you keep using to make points...he criticizes the media for skewing stats to fit their agenda, while doing the exact same in his vids. How does murder rates in the 1930's or 70's have anything to do with today? Stop the vid at the 1:00 mark because that's all that anyone needs to know: 4.8 murder rate for the U.S in 2011 vs. 1.2 murder rate for the U.K in 2011. What's a good way to lower the rate in the U.S? More stringent gun control....or I guess we can muddy the discussion by using murder rates for the past 100 years...whatever... (I also loved his first vid where he used violent crime data to make his point about gun control. Because violent crimes totally are the same as gun deaths, right?)

And Biden never said gun control policies wouldn't work - he just said they're not fail-safe guarantees that mass murders won't happen again, which is common sense.

[Presideo]

double post

[DigitalChaos]

edit: nevermind. If your post is so bad that it requires the conversation to deviate from the thread topic and prompts an explanation of how basic statistical analysis and scientific analysis should work... well.. it's clearly not worth replying.

[Presideo]

PS - You seem to have failed Science 101 and cannot distinguish causation from correlation. You seem to lack rudimentary statistical analysis skills too... even when wrapped up in a dumbed down video. It's so bad that it's on par with intentional trolling.

Oh snap, questioning my comprehension skills?! You've really done it this time, mister!



But seriously, enlighten me on how the graph above proves that more stringent gun control won't bring the death rate down. And saying "the rates have dropped over the past few years without stronger gun control" is bullshit. A 4.8 murder rate is still horrendous, and guns are the problem causing that murder rate. Using the U.K's minuscule increases in death rate here and there to prove that gun control is ineffective is laughable. They've never come close to our death rate.

Let me re-post homicide rates of a few countries I gave months ago.

Japan 0.3
Britain 1.2
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.8

Do we seriously want this to be the norm for our country? A bunch of gun-loving heathens who'd rather trade safety for the blinding adoration of shiny metal?

[Presideo]

edit: nevermind. If your post is so bad that it requires the conversation to deviate from the thread topic and prompts an explanation of how basic statistical analysis and scientific analysis should work... well.. it's clearly not worth replying.

Don't mind me - go back to flooding the thread with waves of bullshit, and have everybody and their mother call you out on said bullshit. If you haven't noticed, you're not exactly in the majority when it comes to your views on gun control.

[Presideo]

Yeah, 'facepalm' posts that don't agree with your insular viewpoints instead of replying to them.

Stay classy!

[DigitalChaos]

But whatever side of the fence you're on, there is surely no denying there is a problem. So what to do? I'm interested to hear some proposals from the pro gun side, because despite what people say, I refuse to believe the gun crowd is totally blase about all these spree shootings & accepts them as the price of gun rights

Firstly, you need to define the problem. Is it indiscriminate school/public shootings? Is it all deaths by gun? Is it all murder? etc. People seem to use statistics from one to "answer" another. The fix for one issue is not going to be the fix for the other. When you try to simplify multiple issues into a single answer (guns) you get this repeated failure that we are seeing.

School/public shootings - These are extremely rare. So rare that you can't really "test" if your fix has an impact. So rare that it is pointless to put effort into fixing. The time and money could have a much higher return on so many other dangers that rank MUCH higher.

Homicide - This is a good thing to target. Not just gun homicide but ALL homicide. There is a heavy correlation between homicide rates and poverty/low education/population density. Heck, crime in general is connected here. Going after poverty and low education will massively fix homicide rates.

Keeping guns out of the hands of bad people - Politicians are going about it completely wrong. I have some suggestions that are more effective than current proposals AND have decent bipartisan support: http://www.echoingthesound.org/commu...6409#post66409

[Deepvoid]

School/public shootings - These are extremely rare. So rare that you can't really "test" if your fix has an impact. So rare that it is pointless to put effort into fixing. The time and money could have a much higher return on so many other dangers that rank MUCH higher.

Extremely rare? There has been 43 mass shootings in 25 states over the past 4 years. Nearly one per month.

[DigitalChaos]

Extremely rare? There has been 43 mass shootings in 25 states over the past 4 years. Nearly one per month.

That's pretty much the definition of rare. That's on par with the chances of being struck by lightning.

TEN times as many DIE from falling out of bed. More people DIE from falling coconuts, autoerotic asphyxiation, hot water, nuclear radiation leaks, left-handed people using right-handed products, food poisoning, falling off a ladder, drowning in a bath tub, etc. There are much more impacting things we could be focusing our efforts on.


There is a reason the gun control proponents almost always mix mass shootings in with the statistics that include police shooting criminals, criminals shooting criminals, legitimate home defense, etc.

[Deepvoid]

Well, if a mass shooting per month is considered rare or on par with being struck by lightning, well I guess it's just tough luck for those Newtown kids. They should have called in sick that day.

[DigitalChaos]

Well, if a mass shooting per month is considered rare or on par with being struck by lightning, well I guess it's just tough luck for those Newtown kids. They should have called in sick that day.

Bad idea. Schools are much safer than homes. Children have a much higher chance of dying at home.

[Deepvoid]

I figured with all you guns, it'd be safer.

[DigitalChaos]

holy fuck.... how do you turn into someone like this?


All I have to say is:

[Deepvoid]

Watching this 1982 documentary called The Killing of America.

Gun problem was even bigger then. It supports my point that the gun culture in the US is so strong, it'll never change.
I say, buckle up and enjoy the ride .. and hope not to get shot!

[DigitalChaos]

Well, at least you can see how much better things have gotten over the last 10-20 years.

[Deepvoid]

Things are mighty fine now! Haha
The number of murders might be lower but the culture is worst if you ask me.

[DigitalChaos]

I honestly don't think the culture is worse. It's just more in your face due to the edutainment that is constantly trying to increase the shock factor on everything. I mean, look at much of the pro-control group. The message is that the gun problem is constantly going to get worse and will keep doing so until we do something NOW.


You also see more of it come to the surface anytime you try to take it away.



What makes you think that it's gotten worse?

[Satyr]

Watching this 1982 documentary called The Killing of America.

Gun problem was even bigger then. It supports my point that the gun culture in the US is so strong, it'll never change.
I say, buckle up and enjoy the ride .. and hope not to get shot!

Pretty much. Thats the entire reason I'm a responsible law abiding firearm owner. I'm licensed to carry concealed and do.

We have seen time and time again that the only thing that stops these mass murderers is a bullet. I sincerely hope I'm never in a situation in which I'll need to draw down on someone and start shooting at them....But you've probably heard before I'd rather have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

It's unlikely to ever happen but if I'm ever out at a restaurant or mall or etc with my wife and someone starts shooting at people. With my training I could potentially save dozens of lives. I put myself at great risk of harm/death in doing so but I'd prefer to go down defending myself and my loved ones than to hide under a table and hope I'm not executed by a psychopath that is intent on putting as much metal in people as possible.

[DigitalChaos]

3 teens break in to a 60 year old man's home. One instantly cracks him in the head with a bat. Old man pulls out a gun and starts shooting, successfully defending himself.

the great equalizer - guns! (not police)

[Elke]

Isn't it illegal though? In Belgium you can't use a weapon in self-defense that is more destructive than the weapon wielded against you. So the 60 year old would have been brought to trial.

[Jinsai]

Isn't it illegal though? In Belgium you can't use a weapon in self-defense that is more destructive than the weapon wielded against you. So the 60 year old would have been brought to trial.

We don't have laws like that in the US, and to be honest, I'm glad because that doesn't entirely make sense to me.

Are you honestly saying that if somebody comes at you (in Belgium) with an aluminum baseball bat, and is obviously trying to kill you, and you defend yourself by pulling out your handgun and blowing his head off, you've committed a crime? On some level, having laws regarding the appropriate use of weapons that correspond to what weapon is being used against you is a little silly.

[Deepvoid]

We have similar laws in Canada as in Belgium. So I guess it's not that silly.

[Deepvoid]

Your weekly shooting is brought to you by KFC.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/justice/delaware-court-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

3 people shot. No deaths reported at this time.

**
Edit: Make that 3 dead (incl. shooter) and 2 officers wounded.

[Elke]

We don't have laws like that in the US, and to be honest, I'm glad because that doesn't entirely make sense to me.

Are you honestly saying that if somebody comes at you (in Belgium) with an aluminum baseball bat, and is obviously trying to kill you, and you defend yourself by pulling out your handgun and blowing his head off, you've committed a crime? On some level, having laws regarding the appropriate use of weapons that correspond to what weapon is being used against you is a little silly.

Well, if you're blowing his head off, there's definitely going to be an inquiry, whether he's armed or not.

It's not as silly as it seems. It's legislation from 1830 (it has been updated, but not all that much) about what constitutes self-defense, and it's based on the principle that you can not use exaggerated force to defend yourself, or your self-defense ends up becoming assault.
For example: a man breaks into your house using only some burglary tools, but is unarmed. You feel threatened, so you shoot him dead. Yeah... that's not self-defense. If someone comes at you with a chainsaw, I'm sure a shotgun would be allowed - but the weapon used in defense has to be relatively equal to the weapon used to attack.

A couple of years ago we've had a lot of public debate about this when jewellers were robbed (often multiple times) and some of them ended up shooting fleeing burglars in the back. Public consensus seemed to be that if someone stole your stuff, shooting 'em dead in the back was a really just thing to do, but thankfully politicians (for once) didn't bow down to the public's demand to change the law; and the judges in those cases stuck to the self-defense laws and case precedents as well (mostly).

I don't think it's immediately crime, I think if the wound is not mortal it's only a misdemeanour, but still... Yes. And I don't think it's a silly law. I can see how it could have incredibly unfortunate side-effects, but I trust the courts to make the correct decision in each case.

[DigitalChaos]

Every state is different but most all of them have some level of law requiring appropriate force. We just don't do anything dumb like restrict it to the same weapon of the intruder/attacker.

We have castle doctrine out here in CA but your life has to be threatened. If you shoot someone in the back (probably running away) you go to jail. Even firing a warning shot means you felt that lethal force wasn't needed but since you fired a gun... YOU used potentially lethal force.

[Satyr]

The whole concept of using the same level of force but not greater than the criminal that has broken into your home is completely mind boggling to me.

Am I supposed to ask the criminal that has broken into my home what they are armed with before I know what I'm allowed to defend myself with?

[Deepvoid]

Well I think the goal is to avoid trigger happy homeowners killing teenagers stealing stuff for dope money.

When someone breaks in your home with the intent of stealing and you pull a gun on him, the intent might change from stealing to killing/defending himself.

[DigitalChaos]

Well I think the goal is to avoid trigger happy homeowners killing teenagers stealing stuff for dope money.

When someone breaks in your home with the intent of stealing and you pull a gun on him, the intent might change from stealing to killing/defending himself.

Well, if the police were able to protect everyone (in the way that pro-gun control people seem to portray their job) there wouldn't be anyone breaking in!
That said, American citizens have a much lower rate of hitting innocent people than police (2% vs 11%).