[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504731]because im not a child and think that my rights will be taken away if my toys go away
the guns wont defend me from shit, fbi statistics proved that pulling a gun in any situation only escalates it and ends up with someone dying[/QUOTE]
Oh really now?
[url]http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA[/url]
Also...a story. A guy I work with told me of an event he had. Some idiots were outside his house at like midnight blasting music while his girls were asleep. He goes out to tell them to turn the shit off (nicely) and they pull a handgun. Fearing for his family, he grabs a shotgun and racks a round with the muzzle against the guy's head. They move out the next day.
See, two links and a story and no one died. Still think guns are evil devices in need of an exorcism?
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48504746]So, my friend holding a guy at gunpoint with a shotgun who thretened her life never happened. Me pulling a gun on someone for threatening me never happened, the thousands of defensive gun used daily never happened. Also, Sobotnik, no it did not.[/QUOTE]
yeah it's great when it does happen. it's also not so great when the opposite, which is when some dolt with a hero complex tries to pull a gun on a mugger and gets murdered happens. but you people love ignoring any instances of that don't you
Something to add to the fray. [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VdZjAfnvA-c[/url] He never had a shotgun, my friend had the shotgun. He had a very large knife.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48504746]Also, Sobotnik, no it did not.[/QUOTE]
It literally said "widespread gun ownership depresses violence" is not a general rule and such an observation is simplistic.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504775]first link 3 people were dead by men with guns
your anecdote could be solved by calling the police and filing a noise complaint[/QUOTE]
Links... Innocent people would have potentially died. They shouldn't be robbing people with guns if they aren't prepared to be shot. Lethal force is justified to protect innocents during armed robberies. Police will not charge you in that situation.
Story... If somebody pulls a gun, are you really gonna go file a noise complaint? Noise complaints are the last thing police respond to. So are "hey I saw a gun I think" calls. Police arrive after the fact.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504775]first link 3 people were dead by men with guns
your anecdote could be solved by calling the police and filing a noise complaint
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
cool, the guy with the shotgun may have never had one if we had effective gun control[/QUOTE]
We do have effective gun control. .00001% that slip thru the cracks will always happen. "Gun control" just makes stupid soccer moms happy.
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504791]soz, what i meant to say was
people threatening other people with guns would probably not have them anyway, making the self defensive gun owners not needing their guns[/QUOTE]
Don't need yours? Sell them. If you hate guns so much, why the fuck do you own them?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504791]soz, what i meant to say was
people threatening other people with guns would probably not have them anyway, making the self defensive gun owners not needing their guns[/QUOTE]
The person threatening my friend never had a gun though, the only person with a gun was my friend who was threatened.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504798]no, you file the complaint before asking if you know your neighbors well
if you live next to a bunch of assholes who you think are predisposed toward going all wild west on you, just call the cops, don't confront them[/QUOTE]
If someone I don't know pulls a gun on me in front of my house while my daughter is home, I will most certainly react the same way. I don't fuck around with family. I've thwarted a home invasion myself with a handgun. Had I not had one, well they'd be talking about a dead body instead of getting a description of who was kicking in my door.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504803]shoot them at the range, they have no chance of being stolen unless someone intercepted me in the 2 mile commute between me and the range
if i had to, i'd have no qualms with selling them
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
was talking about when you said the general people who protect themselves with guns
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
ok but they didnt pull a gun until after the dude asked them to tone it down[/QUOTE]
He went out nicely and asked if they can turn the music down. That's what neighbors do.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504803]shoot them at the range, they have no chance of being stolen unless someone intercepted me in the 2 mile commute between me and the range
if i had to, i'd have no qualms with selling them[/QUOTE]
Well you clearly dislike them. I clearly like mine. I know all the firearm safety rules, and I keep them locked up, besides my handgun. My handgun gets locked up if a child is going to be over, etc. When people are drinking, the guns stay inside. Honestly with the drunk people, even with gun control that can happen.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504824]neighbors know their neighbors, if you live next to assholes, dont bother with asking
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
ok put words into my mouth[/QUOTE]
They were new apparently. I had a group of 8 guys pull a guy out of his house two doors down from me. Neighbor across the street came out armed and the people in that house two doors down from me moved out 2 or 3 weeks later. Cops were looking for the guys [B]TWO DAYS LATER.[/B] (Hence my comment about police only doing paperwork)
Still think guns are bad? No one died.
Another disconcerting thing is that fact that the gun lobby often shuts down research into the impact gun control (or the lack thereof) has on crime:
[quote]In 1996, the NRA lobbied Congressman Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) to include budget provisions that prohibited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from advocating or promoting gun control and that deleted $2.6 million from the CDC budget, the exact amount the CDC had spent on firearms research the previous year. The ban was later extended to all research funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). According to scientists in the field, this made gun research more difficult, reduced the number of studies, and discouraged researchers from even talking about gun violence at medical and scientific conferences. In 2013, after the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, President Barack Obama ordered the CDC to resume funding research on gun violence and prevention, and put $10 million in the 2014 budget request for it.[188][/quote]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Research_limitations[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48504849]Another disconcerting thing is that fact that the gun lobby often shuts down research into the impact gun control (or the lack thereof) has on crime:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Research_limitations[/url][/QUOTE]
Not saying I agree with everything in the political realm. Hell, most republicans have no spine nowadays.
In order to use a gun defensively you don't have to open fire, most usually don't involve shooting. Most people when they see a gun just realize, oh fuck, and leave. Should mention warning shots are not the best thing to do either. You do run the risk of hurting nearby bystanders, and that's never good. You can get arrested for it. The law gets bad as well, if you shoot someone who was robbing you, and they just get injured, they can sue you. If you kill them, then it's usually justifiable. Thing is, no sane person wants to kill someone, having seen dead people, etc, I fucking hate it. The only thing in this world I want to shoot is paper, steel, water, and the occasional deer.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504699]that refers to how criminals will use different weapons
what im talking about is crimes of passion wherein someone happens to be close to a gun (i.e. it is in their vehicle or near them in their house) and they get pissed and kill someone[/QUOTE]
People also get drunk around cars which often ends up with killing people. You cannot base banning something on how dangerous it is when people get stupid around it.
Roughly 30k people are killed every year by guns. This includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. The FBI recorded 240k incidents of people defending themselves with firearms over a 5 year period, that's 48k per year.
You would be willing to disarm 48k people who need a firearm to protect themselves in order to *potentially* (suicidal and homicidal individuals would likely not be deterred by not being able to find a gun) save 30k other people?
Far more people use guns to defend their homes and livelihoods than there are people who use guns offensively. Perhaps you've never had your home invaded, but I can tell you things would make a lot more sense if it ever happens. I had my apartment door kicked in and I had an AK with a 75rd drum magazine and red dot sight in my hands just a moment later. They had a baseball bat and a tire iron. The second I stepped into the light, they turned 360 degrees and moonwalked out of there at the speed of light.
Yet you honestly believe it'd be better if I were disarmed just so a number of people smaller than those like myself could potentially be a little bit safer. You'd also remove the great equalizer from women, the one thing that puts them on the same level as men. We had a sexual assault/attempted rape just about every week at my college campus, then one night it happens to a friend of mine who carries a pocket pistol in her purse. Guess who didn't get raped that night. Many cases like hers and mine never go reported, so the numbers in favor of that statistic are actually even higher than what it claims.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48504856]In order to use a gun defensively you don't have to open fire, most usually don't involve shooting. Most people when they see a gun just realize, oh fuck, and leave. Should mention warning shots are not the best thing to do either. You do run the risk of hurting nearby bystanders, and that's never good. You can get arrested for it. The law gets bad as well, if you shoot someone who was robbing you, and they just get injured, they can sue you. If you kill them, then it's usually justifiable. Thing is, no sane person wants to kill someone, having seen dead people, etc, I fucking hate it. The only thing in this world I want to shoot is paper, steel, water, and the occasional deer.[/QUOTE]
Clakamas mall shooter killed himself because a guy pulled a handgun. That guy saved a huge number of lives but no one calls him a hero. It's pretty fucking sad.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504854]Not saying I agree with everything in the political realm. Hell, most republicans have no spine nowadays.[/QUOTE]
Is it not a concern that the pillar of the idea that "more guns = less crime" is based on research by John Lott (who has been discredited for years), and that when research publications question this assumption that they are shut down and defunded or sidelined?
I mean just look at this thread. Most of the arguments are based more on politics than empirical investigation, with all of the people defending firearms rating each other winner. Are you people here to to seek out the truth?
Most of the links to the studies I have been given aren't from scientific journals, encyclopedias or accredited institutions, but blogposts and websites with names like "guns save lives".
Figured I should add this, this goes along with me. I actually support other gun rights organizations like GoA and NAGR. Also, before someone asks, I'm a third party when it comes to politics. I like shit on the left and right, and Republicans generally piss me off. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_McoFaZxHA[/media]
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48504882]Figured I should add this, this goes along with me. I actually support other gun rights organizations like GoA and NAGR. Also, before someone asks, I'm a third party when it comes to politics. I like shit on the left and right, and Republicans generally piss me off. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_McoFaZxHA[/media][/QUOTE]
SaF is good too.
Should mention for folks who may be homosexuals, Pink Pistols is a very good organization. Hell, there are a lot of pro gun organizations out there that are not necessarily what you would expect. I forgot who did it, but one of the ones I followed even told the Sandy Hook deniers to get off their fucking page, etc. A lot are trying to educate people with common sense, while trying to prevent people from falling for radical lies by scaremongers. In my opinion, if you don't want to own a gun, then don't buy one, just don't stop me because you don't personally like them. I don't stop you from living your life, don't stop me.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504749]Oh really now?
[url]http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA[/url]
Also...a story. A guy I work with told me of an event he had. Some idiots were outside his house at like midnight blasting music while his girls were asleep. He goes out to tell them to turn the shit off (nicely) and they pull a handgun. Fearing for his family, he grabs a shotgun and racks a round with the muzzle against the guy's head. They move out the next day.
See, two links and a story and no one died. Still think guns are evil devices in need of an exorcism?[/QUOTE]
So he went inside and grabbed a shotgun and then went outside again to scare them off? Seems like he could've just called the police "These guys are threatening me with a gun" and then go to sleep really. Or did he grab the shotgun beforehand?
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48504983]Should mention for folks who may be homosexuals, Pink Pistols is a very good organization. Hell, there are a lot of pro gun organizations out there that are not necessarily what you would expect. I forgot who did it, but one of the ones I followed even told the Sandy Hook deniers to get off their fucking page, etc. A lot are trying to educate people with common sense, while trying to prevent people from falling for radical lies by scaremongers. In my opinion, if you don't want to own a gun, then don't buy one, just don't stop me because you don't personally like them. I don't stop you from living your life, don't stop me.[/QUOTE]
I'm more concerned about public policy and the impact of firearms on various areas of life.
[url]http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm[/url]
These above explain why the more guns = less crime hypothesis is flawed and does not accurately represent reality due to faulty data interpretation.
[quote]Within a year, two determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin (1998) published a study showing that if they changed the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's findings disappeared. Black and Nagin found that when Florida was removed from the sample there was "no detectable impact of the right-to-carry laws on the rate of murder and rape." They concluded that "inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy."[/quote]
[url]http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf[/url]
[quote]Over time, a body of empirical research can disentangle thorny issues of causation and lead toward consensus. We view this Article as playing a role in this process (not in ending the conversation). On net, we believe that Lott and Mustardís efforts made an important contribution to the literature. They asked the initial question, amassed an important new panel dataset, and then energetically and creatively analyzed it. (Indeed, their dataset, which we know from experience was quite costly to construct, has been used by many researchers to explore this and other questions about crime.) Nevertheless, their results have not withstood the test of time. When we added five years of county data and seven years of state data, allowing us to test an additional fourteen jurisdictions that adopted shall-issue laws, the previous Lott and Mustard findings proved not to be robust. Importantly, we showed that the Lott and Mustard results collapse when the more complete county data is subjected to less-constrained jurisdiction-specific specifications or when the more-complete state data is tweaked in plausible ways. No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241[/url]
[quote]"While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change."[/quote]
[b]More guns =/= less crime[/b]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48508656]I'm more concerned about public policy and the impact of firearms on various areas of life.
[url]http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm[/url]
These above explain why the more guns = less crime hypothesis is flawed and does not accurately represent reality due to faulty data interpretation.
[url]http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241[/url]
[b]More guns =/= less crime[/b][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/21/packing-heat-in-detroit-motown-residents-answer-police-chief-call-to-arms/?intcmp=hpbt1[/url]
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48510741][url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/21/packing-heat-in-detroit-motown-residents-answer-police-chief-call-to-arms/?intcmp=hpbt1[/url][/QUOTE]
I honestly don't think you understand what constitutes proof and what doesn't. The closest you come to proof of "More guns = less crime" in that article is this:
[QUOTE]“Home invasions have gone down,” he said. “A huge reason was that there was a huge spate of homeowners using their guns against intruders. More people have guns and it’s making burglars cautious.”[/QUOTE]
Which is just the opinion of a firearms instructor. Even Fox news acknowledges that this isn't proof of "more guns = less crime" in the paragraph above that quote:
[QUOTE]Ector said that he and other instructors have seen a steady rise in locals looking to get a permit, to protect themselves either on the street or in their homes.[B] While data showing a relation between increased gun ownership and the crime rate is not available[/B], Ector said legally armed residents are having an effect.[/QUOTE]
You can call me biased or whatever, but you can't say something's happening (unless you admit it's just an opinion) and expect people to take your good word for it, unless you have solid statistics backing you up.
Explain to me why areas without gun free zones and also are without CCW bans are the safest, and gun free zones have more shootings?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48510741][url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/21/packing-heat-in-detroit-motown-residents-answer-police-chief-call-to-arms/?intcmp=hpbt1[/url][/QUOTE]
Did you read the links I sent you? Like, the actual papers by researchers who did actual statistical analysis?
[quote]Lott and Mustard were comparing trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City. What actually happened was that there was an explosion of crack-related homicides in major eastern cities in the 1980s and early 1990s. Lott's whole argument came down to a claim that the largely rural and western "shall issue" states were spared the crack-related homicide epidemic because of their "shall issue" laws. This would never have been taken seriously if it had not been obscured by a maze of equations.[/quote]
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48510741][url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/21/packing-heat-in-detroit-motown-residents-answer-police-chief-call-to-arms/?intcmp=hpbt1[/url][/QUOTE]
Man, which would be more viable to use in an argument, an article from a source known to have a conservative bias, or 3 university reports from actual law schools?
This thread is fucking retarded, you guys aren't gonna change each others' minds. Just leave it be instead of making a 6 page long argument about the same goddamn thing.
People that like guns can like guns, people that don't like guns can not like guns.
And if you really absolutely want to argue go ask Garry for Mass Debate back
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512085]This thread is fucking retarded, you guys aren't gonna change each others' minds. Just leave it be instead of making a 6 page long argument about the same goddamn thing.
People that like guns can like guns, people that don't like guns can not like guns.
And if you really absolutely want to argue go ask Garry for Mass Debate back[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I'm done arguing with people that simply won't understand because they live in a different culture.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48512099]Agreed. I'm done arguing with people that simply won't understand because they live in a different culture.[/QUOTE]
what a lazy copout
you haven't even read the research papers i posted here, and replied with newspaper articles that i doubt you read either
the question of whenever or not the availability of firearms impacts on crime rates is a public policy question dependent on evidence and shit. it's not to do with "understanding culture" because it's irrelevant to the argument.
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;48512085]This thread is fucking retarded, you guys aren't gonna change each others' minds. Just leave it be instead of making a 6 page long argument about the same goddamn thing.[/QUOTE]
it's easy to come into the middle of a debate, proclaiming all of the posters to be idiots, and then sit there feeling like you contributed to the thread when you didn't actually do anything.
we've got a thread in general discussion where people are arguing about videogame journalism of all things, go complain to them for arguing about "the same goddamn thing"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
