Gun control - murderer control?

[licketysplit]

 

This is what kills me: gun nuts want the right to use a military grade weapon for leisure, even if some wacko uses the same weapon for mass murder. Anything for leisure, apparently.

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal.

I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks.

 

Woah...Columbine and Newtown never happened? It's easy to tell those who lost family, it never really happened...right? The important thing is, we can all go target shooting. That's what matters.

Edited March 9, 2014 by licketysplit

[Valsuelm]

 

 

This is what kills me: gun nuts want the right to use a military grade weapon for leisure, even if some wacko uses the same weapon for mass murder. Anything for leisure, apparently.

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal.

I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks.

 

Woah...Columbine and Newtown never happened? It's easy to tell those who lost family, it never really happened...right? The important thing is, we can all go target shooting. That's what matters.

 

 

Where did he say Columbine and Newton never happened? What does that have to do with anything? Who mentioned anything about target shooting aside from you?

Edited March 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Orogun01]

 

 

This is what kills me: gun nuts want the right to use a military grade weapon for leisure, even if some wacko uses the same weapon for mass murder. Anything for leisure, apparently.

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal.

I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks.

 

Woah...Columbine and Newtown never happened? It's easy to tell those who lost family, it never really happened...right? The important thing is, we can all go target shooting. That's what matters.

 

It seem like recently an appeal to indignation has become a common tactic among social crusaders, even when it is completely misused they just seem hopeful that their opponent will be shamed into submission. Just my opinion.

 

You are still showing an immense bias towards gun owners, reducing all of them to a few (yes, school shootings are rare you may had more luck trying to put gang violence as an example) disturbed elements which are in no way representative of the majority of gun owners. Can't you really come up with a reasonable argument against gun ownership that doesn't demonize gun owners?

[alanschu]

It seem like recently an appeal to indignation has become a common tactic among social crusaders, even when it is completely misused they just seem hopeful that their opponent will be shamed into submission. Just my opinion.

I think the fallacy is applied pretty generally across humanity, rather than to any particular side of a particular group.

[Orogun01]

 

It seem like recently an appeal to indignation has become a common tactic among social crusaders, even when it is completely misused they just seem hopeful that their opponent will be shamed into submission. Just my opinion.

I think the fallacy is applied pretty generally across humanity, rather than to any particular side of a particular group.

 

Like I said, just an opinion but in my experience I seem to observe that it is used more by those who assume to have the moral high ground.

[alanschu]

Like I said, just an opinion but in my experience I seem to observe that it is used more by those who assume to have the moral high ground.

In my own experience, my opinion tends to be that I observe it more in people that disagree with me. I recognize that I have an inclination to grant those that share my perspective greater leniency than those that don't share my own. In that sense, I'm ascribing my own assumptions into your world as well (which may not actually be accurate, but hey... we disagree and that you pointed it out reaffirms my original perspective )

[Kroney]

This is what kills me: gun nuts want the right to use a military grade weapon for leisure, even if some wacko uses the same weapon for mass murder. Anything for leisure, apparently.

This is precisely what I was talking about.

[Meshugger]

Pffft, anyone of you guys would love to go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY and have some nice shooting.

[ravenshrike]

 

Just thought, having argued in favour of gun control, this incident pretty much blows my argument away <sic>.

I think that prisons show us that even most controlled environment any tool can be used to cause harm in a premeditated attack. That doesn't mean that we should control toothbrush sale, or make weapons easily available accessible or uncontrolled.

 

Generally speaking the bottom line is that guns are far more effective/lethal then knifes. Anyone can squeeze the trigger, not everyone can stab a person to death, let alone to build up the courage to get close enough, especially if he is big.

 

Also most crimes are attacks of opportunity.

 

Australia banned most weapons after the Port Arthur Massacre. Over the next 12 years, there was less than 3 tenths of a percent difference in the drop in murder rates between Australia and America. Unlike America however, where all other forms of violent crime have also been decreasing, in Australia they have been rising.

Edited March 21, 2014 by ravenshrike

[Mor]

Oh really? I would love to see the study this is taken from and by study I don't mean some gun nut blog. Specifically the part that link the supposed rise in crime to gun ownership.

[Valsuelm]

Oh really? I would love to see the study this is taken from and by study I don't mean some gun nut blog. Specifically the part that link the supposed rise in crime to gun ownership.

 

'Gun nuts'? You certainly have an unbiased objective view of the situation. Look it up yourself. The various statistics for such things are not hard to find, especially U.S. statistics. About the only stat I've ever had any trouble finding is how many people are gunned down by police every year in the U.S., as even though congress has asked it to be done the FBI and other governmental agencies have ignored their request.

 

Oh here, since I know you're lazy (because if you weren't you'd have already looked this stuff up and wouldn't use the term 'gun nuts'):

 

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

 

Find the rest yourself.

[Mor]

It called healthy skepticism, based on what I do know about research conducted concerning Australia change of legislation in 96, the precedent of Tobacco companies lobbyist "research" and the seemingly ludicrous synthesis above that I specifically pointed out, which seem like something that a retard blogger with skill in googling created (maybe to you a comparison between hard numbers in US and Australia or Sweden for that mater is meaningful, but it isn't to anyone one else, though I would love to see how you explain that conclusion I mentioned through googling stats)

 

EDIT: Btw as for those research, there have been several studies in Australia, most focused on gun violence and suicide rates, with different result from up to 80% decrease, double the decline rates or not noticeable change. The later had been criticized for methodological flaws. It would be interesting to see on which study your uhm data is based on.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Mor

[teknoman2]

as the dwarves in warcraft 3 used to say

guns dont kill people, I DO!!!

criminals of all kinds, will find a way to get their hands on a gun even if it is completelly illegal to own one. the most important is to care for the mental health of people, ensuring that they will not go on a killing spree, which they will even if they dont have access to guns (may be a bit harder to pull off but they will). simply banning guns is like giving medicine for coughing to someone with tubercolosis... he will still die.

more restrictions on who is allowed to have a gun are helpful, but are not the solution

[ravenshrike]

Oh really? I would love to see the study this is taken from and by study I don't mean some gun nut blog. Specifically the part that link the supposed rise in crime to gun ownership.

It is not particularly difficult to look up violent crime rates for the years 1995 and 2007 for both the US and Australia. You then divide the later number by the earlier number to see how much the rate has increased/decreased.

[Mor]

Unless you are implying that gun control is the sole reason for increase/decrease to those rates(in which case you score for the other team) it is particularly difficult to derive anything about gun control from comparing those statistics without sounding ridiculous... (i.e. the specific part I mentioned above for which i'll need more then some blogger with googling skills as reference )

Edited March 22, 2014 by Mor

[teknoman2]

here's how they do it in my country

to get a gun you need a permit. to get a permit you go to the police. they check to see if you have a record, they test you to see if you know the proper safety procedures and have one of their phychiatrists interview you to make sure you are not mentaly unstable, and if you pass you get permission to own firearms. and of course you are not allowed to use the firearm outside a shooting range, unless fired upon, with the exception of hunting.

[Orogun01]

Unless you are implying that gun control is the sole reason for increase/decrease to those rates(in which case you score for the other team) it is particularly difficult to derive anything about gun control from comparing those statistics without sounding ridiculous... (i.e. the specific part I mentioned above for which i'll need more then some blogger with googling skills as reference )

Funny how you're adamant about disregarding statistics based solely on skepticism for no sake other than speculation. It seems pretty straightforward, there was a legislation for banning guns and ever since it passed crime has been steadily on the rise.

Even if you take economic factors there is still a steady incline with no plateaus; crime stats would have to show an inversely proportional relation with economic growth or a similar economic measure. That is if you want to prove that crime rise is not solely the result of a gun ban, but I can still say that a gun ban is a contributing factor in the increase of crime. So whichever way you interpret it the fact is that there has been a increase on violent crimes since 1996. 

[Mor]

There is no even if. Either you can show me a paper that studied violent crimes stats and its conclusion says anything about ban of semi auto guns(not all guns) or your playing with stats to suite your belief (like those guys from that global warming institute).

 

For example I have no problem with people who would claim that ban of semi-auto guns in Australia had no discernible impact on suicide and violent crime rates, because I am familiar with at least on such study(and criticism over its methodology, I am also familiar with studies that showed that it has very discernible impact )

 

So again do you have anything other then googling skills to back up those assertions, surely if one of you figured the truth in two minutes there would be some research or reputable source quoting one that back up the conclusion you are trying to paddle, until then this nothing but another claim on the internetz.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Mor

[Valsuelm]

Where on earth do you think you're going to get more reliable statistics on crime in Australia than the Australian government?

 

And do you really need someone to read the statistics for you and write a 'paper' or 'study' spelling out what those statistics say? 

 

I don't use Google.

[Mor]

yeah I do, because you are obviously a retard who don't get that crime rates has several contributing factors (such as socio‐economic and cultural factors, so crime rates can go up/down even though Gun ban has good/no/bad influence ) so making the conclusion you made is ignorant, moreover it predicated on the assumption the guns bans not only correlate but a deciding factor on crime rates, which something that gun lobbies has fought tooth and nail against for decades. which why we need a paper or some reputable source not a kid with google skills..

Edited March 23, 2014 by Mor

[Valsuelm]

yeah I do, because you are obviously a retard who don't get that crime rates has several contributing factors (such as socio‐economic and cultural factors, so crime rates can go up/down even though Gun ban has good/no/bad influence ) so making the conclusion you made is ignorant, moreover it predicated on the assumption the guns bans not only correlate but a deciding factor on crime rates, which something that gun lobbies has fought tooth and nail against for decades. which why we need a paper or some reputable source not a kid with google skills..

 

I guess your ability to use proper grammar wanes when you're in a vitriolic tizzy?

 

What conclusion did I make that was ignorant? I never said there aren't a lot of factors why crime happens as you seem to think.

 

I'm not a kid, kid (you certainly act like one if you aren't one by age), and I don't use google.

 

If you really need some folks with a PhD to tell you what's what, you're never going to see the light on this issue or any other. You're beholden to others to do your thinking for you.

[Mor]

I am not the one making ridicules assertions and logical leaps, with familiar slogans from blogger sites, nor will I try to prove a negative. (and My poor English grammar is not news to anyone)

 

But since you agree that there are a lot of factors to crime rates, please do some of that thinking you mentioned and tell me what you think about ravenshrike implied conclusion and then his "methodology"

Australia banned most weapons after the Port Arthur Massacre. Over the next 12 years, there was less than 3 tenths of a percent difference in the drop in murder rates between Australia and America. Unlike America however, where all other forms of violent crime have also been decreasing, in Australia they have been rising.

 

Oh really? I would love to see the study this is taken from and by study I don't mean some gun nut blog. Specifically the part that link the supposed rise in crime to gun ownership.

It is not particularly difficult to look up violent crime rates for the years 1995 and 2007 for both the US and Australia. You then divide the later number by the earlier number to see how much the rate has increased/decreased.

 

and if requesting some kind of research\data from reputable source as prerequisite for any kind of discussion on the matter is anything but granted. ( After all if the conclusion he tried to imply that gun control led to rise in crime was backed by real research it would be in the headlines of every news paper... and so easy to back up )

[Orogun01]

You two have been arguing a lot lately and need to get an avatar so I can tell who's which.
Its like having three Volourns :shudders: (No offense Vol)

[AGX-17]

Its like having three Volourns :shudders: (No offense Vol)

I don't even care if Volourn's offended. It's like some kind of internal argument preparing for a philosophy paper.

 

Also guns. Pow. On topic. I shot the topic through the heart with .44 SWC whose existence I discovered through New Vegas.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Its like having three Volourns :shudders: (No offense Vol)

They should get in a 3-way argument so we can have Volorun^3.