[QUOTE=Megafan;40292484]Please do not cite a libertarian think-tank as a source in these debates. An academic study is fine, but avoid such institutions that are built around advocating a political ideology.[/QUOTE]
The study is very thorough, accurate and well sourced. Just because you don't like their ideology doesn't mean they are inaccurate. Please prove to me that the study is wrong or inaccurate, and I will gladly remove any mention of it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40293412]The study is very thorough, accurate and well sourced. Just because you don't like their ideology doesn't mean they are inaccurate.[/QUOTE]
In all fairness, you aren't really in a position to judge its integrity. That's why you're supposed to avoid them, and as I said it's true of liberal and conservative think-tanks alike. That piece you linked for example comes from a starting position that is pro-gun rather than impartial, which makes it rather obvious that they're trying to find a conclusion they like, rather than suiting their position to a conclusion that is found. I mean the title itself describes concealed carry and things of a similar nature as 'armed resistance'. If you've ever analyzed anything for bias in your life this shouldn't be difficult to figure out.
In any case I'm telling you to avoid it in the future. Ideologically slanted sources (on the more left-leaning side this might be thinkprogress or what have you) are not acceptable here.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40293525]In all fairness, you aren't really in a position to judge its integrity. That's why you're supposed to avoid them, and as I said it's true of liberal and conservative think-tanks alike. That piece you linked for example comes from a starting position that is pro-gun rather than impartial, which makes it rather obvious that they're trying to find a conclusion they like, rather than suiting their position to a conclusion that is found. I mean the title itself describes concealed carry and things of a similar nature as 'armed resistance'. If you've ever analyzed anything for bias in your life this shouldn't be difficult to figure out.
In any case I'm telling you to avoid it in the future. Ideologically slanted sources (on the more left-leaning side this might be thinkprogress or what have you) are not acceptable here.[/QUOTE]
The study mentions nothing about concealed carry until the seventh page. Multiple data sets are used from the FBI, ATF, court cases, as well as many other sources. Like I have mentioned, this study should be read before you try judging it. There are several instances throughout where they admit the shortcomings of some findings.
Dismissing it entirely because it was composed by an ideological group is automatically labeling the entire study as being wrong or inaccurate. Just because it is a one-side leaning think-tank doesn't automatically mean everything produced by them has no merit because of their viewpoint.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40289291]Then you don't really have an argument that says "gun owners live longer lives than non-gun owners".[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik, I don't think he's arguing statistics here. He's not saying "In high-crime areas, armed citizens statistically live longer lives than unarmed citizens." The situation is completely hypothetical, which is that if a bunch of people break into your house intending to cause bodily harm to the occupant (and his family/anyone else inside), the occupant stands a better chance of not getting hurt if he has a gun on hand to scare off the criminals with. Criminals want easy marks, not someone willing and able to fight back.
Now, before you ask me for a source on that, check out BFG9000's links a few posts above this one because he's got some good info there. Also, in that hypothetical situation, I certainly would never want to have a group of armed criminals breaking down my door and need to rely on the police, [url=http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html]who could take upwards of ten minutes to reach me[/url]. I'd be dead or seriously injured and the intruders would be long gone if I couldn't scare them off myself.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40287242]So we should just not allow citizens to legally own guns and steepen the penalties for owning them? Think about this for a second. Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, and the rest-did they walk into those public areas with a gun locked and loaded fearing the penalties? No! They were so deluded that they just ceased to care about what would happen later down the line. Some of them, like Adam Lanza, were planning to be "an hero" anyways, so they feared the consequences even less. Now how would steep penalties work to discourage people from committing crimes, people who lose all sense of self preservation or foresight? You might say something like "Well for criminals who DO have foresight, the consequences will discourage them enough, and saving even one life is a step forward". But I say, this really doesn't have any impact on violent crime, even if it does work. It isn't and never will be a heinous crime to own a kitchen knife, so naturally criminals will just fall back to using those as they have in the UK. But the problem is, whereas the stregnth of a bullet is derived from the energy stored in its powder, a large part of the power of a knife is derived from the stregnth of its user. This is especially bad for women who like CCW because should a national disarmament magically and successfully happen, they would resort to using knives themselves, but the playing field would be more uneven than if a women or even both a woman and a criminal are carrying firearms. Since women tend to be weaker than men physically, they would be at a disadvantage in a knife fight with a stronger and possibly well-experienced criminal.
I myself am not top of my class in the Navy SEALS or trained in gorilla warfare, and am relatively weak in comparison to the average person. So needless to say I would much rather be in a standoff with a criminal aiming guns at each other than a standoff with a criminal brandishing knives at each other.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't prevent those people from committing crimes. Nothing will, but those aren't the people I'm talking about, because they make up only a miniscule fraction of the 10,000+ gun deaths each year. However, guns do increase the lethality of incidents that would otherwise only be muggings or robberies. Obviously in the case of premeditated murder, you are right, the weaker individual is at a disadvantage without guns, but there are more ways to murder someone than with guns. As I said, bombs are very easily made at home, but we don't have an effective countermeasure for the average citizen to take against them. We can only try our best to prevent them with steep penalties.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40287938]gun show "loophole" hahahaha you people are hilarious. there is no debating on an amendment, a right to the people.[/QUOTE]
1. That is only one of the methods of acquiring a firearm that I listed.
2. Are you implying that it isn't a method? Because you would be factually wrong.
There is, in fact, debate allowed on amendments. I'm going to give you enough credit to assume that you are aware of the Prohibition? That was an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Guess what? It was amended [I]again[/I] to abolish the Prohibition. Besides that, the ability to own a gun is, in all honesty, not a right, it is a privilege. More like driving a car than free speech; if it was a right, then felons would not have it taken away. The mentally ill would not have it taken away. It is already hardly a right.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40288498]And in response to your first question, it depends where you live. Some people need them to survive in extremely rural areas. And why not own one for self defense? I don't understand the logic that owning a gun adds to a "gun crime" problem. You gun control advocates understand that restricting firearms only hurts responsible owners right? There are so many guns in america that any act to ban anything wouldnt prevent a criminal from aquiring one.
Also your "arms race" thing is completely false. the criminals arent going to arm themselves in response to civilian gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
Restricting firearms does not "only hurt" responsible gun owners. The vast majority of guns acquired by criminals can be traced back to legal sources. Remove the legal sources, and the vast majority of guns are no longer available to criminals. And yes, if the U.S. just banned firearms straight up right this second, criminals would still have an easy time acquiring them. The question is whether criminals would have an easy time acquiring firearms if it wasn't legal for private citizens to own them. That would reduce the sources for guns to two things: federal/state armories and illegal imports. Right now, the smuggling of guns into the U.S. is minimal. Mostly because they're large metal objects and it's difficult to get them past any screening process on a large scale.
[QUOTE=Jagur;40288603]I dont need some statistic saying that gun owners live longer than non owners because thats silly. I could get into a car acident and die today for all i know. A lot of people live long lives without guns.[/quote]
doesn't understand the purpose of statistics
[QUOTE=Jagur;40288603]What I'm trying to explain to you is that gun ownership can only help you. It cannot harm you.[/QUOTE]
incredibly wrong. it can help you, but it can [B]certainly[/B] harm you as well. a study was posted earlier in this thread that definitively showed that the life expectancy of those living in a home with firearms, even those in gun safes, is lower than those living in a home without firearms. the odds of a homicide or suicide involving members of the home containing firearms is considerably higher as well than a home without firearms. this is because firearms are so lethal compared to other methods of homicide or suicide.
[QUOTE=moffe;40288913]having a firearm tends to increase your life expectancy when someone with a gun is attacking you.[/QUOTE]
this actually does require statistics to back up: in attempted robberies, murders, etc., how many people survive using firearms versus those unarmed? if you can find evidence for this, that is a legitimate point. there was a study of rape survivors i believe also posted in this thread, which showed the success rate of different methods of resistance. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe brandishing a weapon was the second worse option for rape survivors, behind only screaming for help. the best option was running and hiding. i might have something wrong here, so don't take my word for it.
[QUOTE=moffe;40289633]so common sense is meaningless because you need statistics to back it up?[/QUOTE]
it's not common sense to assume that brandishing a gun increases your chance of survival of an attack. usually when one person escalates the threat, the other person escalates in response. what might have been a mugging can become a mugging and homicide. it can also be a successfully thwarted mugging, but it doesn't always work out in favor of the victim whipping out their gun.
[QUOTE=Fhux;40290134]His point still stands, if you own and carry a gun you have a higher chance of walking out of a confrontation with a criminal, no matter what his objective is, without considerable harm done to you. I can supply you with sources for that claim if you want, but I don't believe you need them as this is just, like moffe said, common sense.[/quote]
once again, not necessarily true and also certainly not just common sense.
[QUOTE=Fhux]I am sure you have answered this question before, but what is the main reason that you want to establish gun control for?[/QUOTE]
to reduce the overall violent crime, murder, and suicide rate. yes, there are other factors that go into these things, but it is not impossible to implement multiple methods of attempting to reduce these.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40291695]I don't know why Sobotnik is continuing to ask for "proof" of these claims that guns increase one's chance of getting out of a scrap, but if it must be so I shall find some stories just to resolve this silly thought of his
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/mother-uses-gun-protect-her-child-armed-intruders[/URL]
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/86-year-old-woman-uses-gun-defend-herself-intruder[/URL]
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/what-about-self-defense-stories-involving-guns-mr-president[/URL]
[editline]15th April 2013[/editline]
Yes they're all from the same source but I just couldn't be arsed to go look for the countless other stories documented online because you are fully capable of doing it yourself, Sobotnik, and you know that.[/QUOTE]
anecdotes, while heartwarming, show only individual instances of success and not the overall picture. have robberies, assaults, and murders been thwarted through use of a firearm by a private citizen? yes. does it happen frequently? or even more frequently than that same gun being used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental death in the home?
[QUOTE=Megafan;40292484]Please do not cite a libertarian think-tank as a source in these debates. An academic study is fine, but avoid such institutions that are built around advocating a political ideology.[/QUOTE]
thank you Jesus
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40293757]The study mentions nothing about concealed carry until the seventh page. Multiple data sets are used from the FBI, ATF, court cases, as well as many other sources. Like I have mentioned, this study should be read before you try judging it. There are several instances throughout where they admit the shortcomings of some findings.
Dismissing it entirely because it was composed by an ideological group is automatically labeling the entire study as being wrong or inaccurate. Just because it is a one-side leaning think-tank doesn't automatically mean everything produced by them has no merit because of their viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
admitting shortcomings of some findings doesn't prove the neutrality of the study, it proves that they wanted to appear neutral and threw the opposition a bone for more legitimacy.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40295272]Sobotnik, I don't think he's arguing statistics here. He's not saying "In high-crime areas, armed citizens statistically live longer lives than unarmed citizens." The situation is completely hypothetical, which is that if a bunch of people break into your house intending to cause bodily harm to the occupant (and his family/anyone else inside), the occupant stands a better chance of not getting hurt if he has a gun on hand to scare off the criminals with. Criminals want easy marks, not someone willing and able to fight back.
Now, before you ask me for a source on that, check out BFG9000's links a few posts above this one because he's got some good info there. Also, in that hypothetical situation, I certainly would never want to have a group of armed criminals breaking down my door and need to rely on the police, [URL="http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html"]who could take upwards of ten minutes to reach me[/URL]. I'd be dead or seriously injured and the intruders would be long gone if I couldn't scare them off myself.[/QUOTE]
He should be arguing with statistics though, because it is possible to record the results of that hypothetical situation. Which is why if the results aren't presented, it's still debatable and can't be made as a valid point for either side of the debate.
[editline]15th April 2013[/editline]
long post hhnnnggggg
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40293757]The study mentions nothing about concealed carry until the seventh page. Multiple data sets are used from the FBI, ATF, court cases, as well as many other sources. Like I have mentioned, this study should be read before you try judging it. There are several instances throughout where they admit the shortcomings of some findings.
Dismissing it entirely because it was composed by an ideological group is automatically labeling the entire study as being wrong or inaccurate. Just because it is a one-side leaning think-tank doesn't automatically mean everything produced by them has no merit because of their viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
My point is not that the entire piece is wrong because of who publishes it, but one clarification of how proof works here is that it has to be credible. Posting an article from thinkprogress, Fox Nation, or other slanted sources is not allowed, regardless of the article's content. If the information is credible, it [I]will[/I] be available from a better source. This is not debatable. If when challenged you still do not concede this, you will be banned.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40296318]
anecdotes, while heartwarming, show only individual instances of success and not the overall picture. have robberies, assaults, and murders been thwarted through use of a firearm by a private citizen? yes. does it happen frequently? or even more frequently than that same gun being used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental death in the home?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Unfortunately, statistics for this seem to be all over the place, but it's definitely safe to say that in many cases a gun has been used to prevent a bad situation without any shots ever being fired.
And I think its time I said this: Disarming the entire legal gun-owning populace is unethical. You're punishing many for the actions of a few.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40297616]Yes.
Unfortunately, statistics for this seem to be all over the place, but it's definitely safe to say that in many cases a gun has been used to prevent a bad situation without any shots ever being fired.[/quote]
Statistics remain a necessity here. I am happy that violent crimes have been thwarted through the victims' use of firearms, and I know it happens, but does it happen nearly as often as armed criminals killing armed or unarmed civilians? A few successes doesn't make up for an overwhelming number of failures.
[quote]And I think its time I said this: Disarming the entire legal gun-owning populace is unethical. You're punishing many for the actions of a few.[/QUOTE]
It's not a punishment. I very much enjoy shooting at ranges, but I am more concerned with public safety. There are lots of things that the average person is not allowed to do that they would probably like to do, but can't. I could frame a counterargument in a similar sense that it is unethical to allow firearms to go unchecked as they have. They are the cause of over ten-thousand deaths each year. Not only that, but you're punishing the many people that don't own firearms for the hobbies of a few. Not everyone can afford them, and not everyone morally agrees with owning them.
I could continue with this line of arguing, but I think we can all agree that it is sensationalist at best.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40298086]Statistics remain a necessity here. I am happy that violent crimes have been thwarted through the victims' use of firearms, and I know it happens, but does it happen nearly as often as armed criminals killing armed or unarmed civilians? A few successes doesn't make up for an overwhelming number of failures.
It's not a punishment. I very much enjoy shooting at ranges, but I am more concerned with public safety. There are lots of things that the average person is not allowed to do that they would probably like to do, but can't. I could frame a counterargument in a similar sense that it is unethical to allow firearms to go unchecked as they have. They are the cause of over ten-thousand deaths each year. Not only that, but you're punishing the many people that don't own firearms for the hobbies of a few. Not everyone can afford them, and not everyone morally agrees with owning them.
I could continue with this line of arguing, but I think we can all agree that it is sensationalist at best.[/QUOTE]
But just because someone doesn't morally agree with something doesn't mean that people should be restricted from it
Just ask the guys in Durgs Discussion, or the people in the Transgender Megathread
And like I stated earlier, the stats are all over the place for this aspect of gun usage. So its really unfair to say that statistics are neccesary for the claim that guns have thwarted crime even though
[quote] A few successes doesn't make up for an overwhelming number of failures.
[/quote] This statement relies on those exact same statistics that I am lacking.
I could quite easily pull statistics from the Cato institute on this subject to support my claim, or from a left-wing attorney's blog to support yours; and unlike other sets of statistics on the topic of gun control, such as guns being the number 3 murder weapon in America or "assault weapons" being used in less than 1% of gun crime, I'm seeing for the first time two equally legitimate sets of statistics, the only deciding factor in which one I think is right being my pro-gun predisposition.
[editline]15th April 2013[/editline]
I'd also like to restate that I'm in support of regulating the way guns are obtained (namely closing the gun show loophole) as long as it doesn't involve any type of gun registry.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40299284]But just because someone doesn't morally agree with something doesn't mean that people should be restricted from it
Just ask the guys in Durgs Discussion, or the people in the Transgender Megathread[/quote]
I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, I meant that the playing field isn't level because not everyone has guns. People who morally object to them and people who can't afford them can't defend themselves against criminals equipped with firearms.
[quote]And like I stated earlier, the stats are all over the place for this aspect of gun usage. So its really unfair to say that statistics are neccesary for the claim that guns have thwarted crime even though
This statement relies on those exact same statistics that I am lacking.[/quote]
Wait, why is it unfair to say statistics are necessary to back up a claim that should be able to be backed up by statistics? You admit that you lack them, and that statistics that are out there are all over the place. So you can't actually say that as true when there isn't evidence to support it. That's all I'm saying.
[quote]I could quite easily pull statistics from the Cato institute on this subject to support my claim, or from a left-wing attorney's blog to support yours; and unlike other sets of statistics on the topic of gun control, such as guns being the number 3 murder weapon in America or "assault weapons" being used in less than 1% of gun crime, I'm seeing for the first time two equally legitimate sets of statistics, the only deciding factor in which one I think is right being my pro-gun predisposition.[/quote]
So then I feel like we should be able to agree here that the statement hasn't been proven either way and shouldn't be used in the debate. Is that fair?
[quote]I'd also like to restate that I'm in support of regulating the way guns are obtained (namely closing the gun show loophole) as long as it doesn't involve any type of gun registry.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not you support gun rights or increased gun control, do you think that criminals would have a harder time acquiring firearms if they weren't legal for private ownership? Have I been able to convince you with numbers that the majority of firearms used by criminals can be traced back to a legal source, rather than an elusive black market?
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40299681]I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, I meant that the playing field isn't level because not everyone has guns. People who morally object to them and people who can't afford them can't defend themselves against criminals equipped with firearms.
[/quote]
True, true, but how do the desires of these people trump the desires of people who don't have a problem with firearms usage in self defense?
[quote]
Wait, why is it unfair to say statistics are necessary to back up a claim that should be able to be backed up by statistics? You admit that you lack them, and that statistics that are out there are all over the place. So you can't actually say that as true when there isn't evidence to support it. That's all I'm saying.[/quote]
Because the thing is, the claim (or perhaps, suggestion) you were making relied on the exact same statistics that my claim did, and as I said earlier I had trouble getting reliable statistics from anywhere. So neither my claim that the amount of firearms self defenses cases is significant compared to the amount of firearms crimes, or your claim that significantly more firearms crime occurs than self defense, can be verified using statistics.
[quote]
So then I feel like we should be able to agree here that the statement hasn't been proven either way and shouldn't be used in the debate. Is that fair?
[/quote]
whoops, that's what I was getting at. yes, that seems fair.
[quote]
Whether or not you support gun rights or increased gun control, do you think that criminals would have a harder time acquiring firearms if they weren't legal for private ownership? Have I been able to convince you with numbers that the majority of firearms used by criminals can be traced back to a legal source, rather than an elusive black market?[/QUOTE]
While you do bring up a valid point, and while criminals would have a harder time initially acquiring firearms after the initial supply from legal owners begins to dry up, I think that likely criminals would just start smuggling firearms in from foreign places, or even start their own underground factories dedicated to building guns. The most likely solution for criminals at this point would be to start printing guns using CAD programs-I would expect to see all of these behaviors mostly in organized crime like gangs and the like but no doubt the guns from these sources will trickle down to other, less organized criminals.
Point being, sure right now most firearms can be traced back to a legal source, but after the full effect of the ban sets in, more firearms would now come in through the blackmarket. Its almost like living in proximity to a pharmacy that you go to to get medicine because its more convenient than going across town to go to another pharmacy, which you would no doubt start doing if the theoretical pharmacy in your area went out of business.
Methamphetamine is highly illegal. Yet people still make the stuff at home. Arguably, recreational drugs are easier to obtain than before the ban.
Banning something does not work to prevent people from making or obtaining it.
The problem I see with a lot of arguments is the lack of understanding that laws only affect those willing to abide by them. Laws will never have a great affect on criminals. Because at the end of the day laws are merely words on paper. There isn't anything to physically prevent someone from doing something that is against the law.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40300147]True, true, but how do the desires of these people trump the desires of people who don't have a problem with firearms usage in self defense?[/QUOTE]
It isn't about their desires, it's about overall safety. You can't force everyone to use a gun, or even own one. At least, I think. That hasn't been done before, and it would certainly be unethical. Thus, there will always be people at a disadvantage when it comes to firearms. They probably could learn self-defense martial arts techniques, but it wouldn't help very much against a handgun at a distance. On the other side of things, removing firearms allows criminals to gang up on people, but they already do that, with and without firearms. I kind of stopped for a minute here to right the bottom half of this post and lost my train of thought, but it'll come back to me. My main point is that you can't exactly say that making firearms legal for everyone also make the playing field level for everyone, because that will never be the case. Lots of people can't or won't use firearms, or don't have concealed carry, etc., and criminals still have the advantage, their advantage is just much more lethal than it might be if firearms were removed.
[quote]While you do bring up a valid point, and while criminals would have a harder time initially acquiring firearms after the initial supply from legal owners begins to dry up, I think that likely criminals would just start smuggling firearms in from foreign places, or even start their own underground factories dedicated to building guns. The most likely solution for criminals at this point would be to start printing guns using CAD programs-I would expect to see all of these behaviors mostly in organized crime like gangs and the like but no doubt the guns from these sources will trickle down to other, less organized criminals.
Point being, sure right now most firearms can be traced back to a legal source, but after the full effect of the ban sets in, more firearms would now come in through the blackmarket. Its almost like living in proximity to a pharmacy that you go to to get medicine because its more convenient than going across town to go to another pharmacy, which you would no doubt start doing if the theoretical pharmacy in your area went out of business.[/quote]
This is also while I am in favor of the incremental restriction of gun rights. There's no need to get hasty and ban everything because that would fail for a number of reasons. But if guns were removed more slowly and steadily, it would allow us to track the data and see if there are any noticeable effects moving forward. Both as far as violent crime statistics, and how the public's sense of safety is affected. When criminals do start manufacturing their own firearms, which is something this country has never had to deal with before, we would again see how violent crime is affected and if the restrictions are still doing anything, and law enforcement would also be able attempt to come up with techniques for preventing the illegal manufacture and trade of firearms. I'm arguing a theoretical point here, because I can't say with certainty what will happen, but I believe it's worth a try for the sake of public safety, in addition to other methods of reducing gun violence.
[QUOTE=Kigen;40301326]Methamphetamine is highly illegal. Yet people still make the stuff at home. Arguably, recreational drugs are easier to obtain than before the ban.
Banning something does not work to prevent people from making or obtaining it.
The problem I see with a lot of arguments is the lack of understanding that laws only affect those willing to abide by them. Laws will never have a great affect on criminals. Because at the end of the day laws are merely words on paper. There isn't anything to physically prevent someone from doing something that is against the law.[/QUOTE]
Methamphetamine is also considerably easier to make than semiautomatic rifles or handguns. Improvised do-it-yourself firearms exist, but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke. You can make bombs in your house too, but it's still banned, we don't just not pass a law outlawing it because we won't be able to stop it, that's fucking stupid. The point of a law is to discourage people from doing something and then, when they do it, to allow the judiciary system to punish them for doing it. Just because criminals don't abide by the law doesn't mean you just give up and say "well guys they're criminals so these laws are pointless daHAHA." They also don't affect only law-abiding citizens; as I've pointed out, criminals obtain the vast majority of their firearms from those law-abiding citizens in one way or another. Remove their source of firearms and they have a much, much harder time getting ahold of them.
Seriously, you have no idea what laws are for or something. Read this like three times over:
[quote]Laws will never have a great affect on criminals. Because at the end of the day laws are merely words on paper. There isn't anything to physically prevent someone from doing something that is against the law.[/quote]
This is mind-blowing. Could you imagine what shit would go down if murder wasn't illegal, or there were no traffic laws? [B]Obviously[/B] criminals don't abide by the law. That's the point. Do you understand the purpose of laws?
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40302674]Improvised do-it-yourself firearms exist, but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know how firearms work.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40302952]I don't think you know how firearms work.[/QUOTE]
Really? So do please tell me, you wouldn't rather have an AR-15 or a glock or a revolver or really any real gun over a single-shot shotgun stick or zip gun in a shootout or a raid or anything? You really think that the lethality or effectiveness of a firearm doesn't matter? Then why bother having more than one bullet, ever? Why make rounds any bigger or smaller, or fire at different velocities? They obviously all do the same job just as effectively, right? Please, tell me how firearms work.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40302674]Improvised do-it-yourself firearms exist, but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke.[/QUOTE]
This is utterly inaccurate. All a round needs to fire is a reliable strike on the primer. The round determines the lethality, not the weapon. You are not improvising or making ammunition, you are making a firearm. The FBI has reported multiple times that the average distance of a gunfight is 21 feet and under. This is more than a deadly range for a shotgun shell. All that would be needed is a thick piece of pipe for a chamber, and a smooth tube for the barrel. The tube/barrel does not need to be long at all, as most shells reach their maximum velocity at 10 inches or less. Even still, at those distances, you wouldn't even need 5". Here is an example of a bang stick or "slap shotgun":
[img]http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/wars_and_weapons/other/ImprovisedFirearms/slapShotGun.gif[/img]
These can be made for less than $20, and are just as lethal as any other shotgun. Bang sticks have been made for years, and in just about any caliber you can imagine: .357, .44, .223, etc. They are just as lethal as any handgun or revolver.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40303429]Really? So do please tell me, you wouldn't rather have an AR-15 or a glock or a revolver or really any real gun over a single-shot shotgun stick or zip gun in a shootout or a raid or anything? You really think that the lethality or effectiveness of a firearm doesn't matter? Then why bother having more than one bullet, ever? Why make rounds any bigger or smaller, or fire at different velocities? They obviously all do the same job just as effectively, right? Please, tell me how firearms work.[/QUOTE]
That is NOT what you said. You said, "but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke." This statement is NOT true. Do real guns have advantages over them? Of course they do. Are they less lethal or less effective? No they are not. The desired goal is lethality, and both are capable of achieving that goal equally.
You seem to think that a DIY firearm can only be a one-shot pen gun or something, while in fact you can build some pretty complex stuff out of basic steel slabs and using simple tools.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6jy4yi7B78[/media]
Fuck it, you can churn AK47s out of your garage if you're patient enough. Firearms aren't magical sci-fi contraptions, a Sten is essentially a sewer pipe with a spring and some gubbins inside, and it was good enough for the British army in WW2.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40302952]I don't think you know how firearms work.[/QUOTE]
*ahem*
the guy's in the military, wouldn't suggest going there
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
Also, while not as simple to make as a Sten, just thought I'd cite this guy...
[url]http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/build-yourself/179192-diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.html[/url]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40303742]*ahem*
the guy's in the military, wouldn't suggest going there[/QUOTE]
In all honesty, his claim that a homemade weapon could never be as lethal as a factory-made one was all sorts of wrong.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40303860]In all honesty, his claim that a homemade weapon could never be as lethal as a factory-made one was all sorts of wrong.[/QUOTE]
I agree. They all shoot the same round as their manufactured counterparts and these rounds can be manufactured pretty easily as well.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40296318]
to reduce the overall violent crime, murder, and suicide rate. yes, there are other factors that go into these things, but it is not impossible to implement multiple methods of attempting to reduce these.
[/QUOTE]
I'll only be answering this now as it was directed to me, but might respond to some of your other claims (for example I'd like to see a source on the claim about rape. What I find comes from 1979, but explains how 3% of rape attacks were finished when the victim was carrying a firearm, compared to the [I]37[/I]% of those against unarmed citizens) later when I do not need sleep.
First of all, I do believe, although I have yet to look up solid information about it, that banning guns would reduce the amount of spontaneous suicide. Violent crime and murder, however? If anything, they would both receive a major increase.
Even conservative studies find that 1 million US civilians use a gun for self-defense annually, not counting the obvious deterring factor that citizens carrying firearms create. They save lives, billions in* property, and reduce the burden on local law enforcement with most never firing a shot. Crime has dropped nationwide in the last 20 years without any substantial change in gun laws.
As I can see it, there is literally no reason to believe that more gun control would solve the problems you wish to solve. Instead, as you said, this has to do with other things, such as poverty and a lack of mental health care, which has been said many times before.
Sources:
[url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1[/url]
[url]http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/830/violent-crime-has-declined[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40303447]That is NOT what you said. You said, "but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke." This statement is NOT true. Do real guns have advantages over them? Of course they do. Are they less lethal or less effective? No they are not. The desired goal is lethality, and both are capable of achieving that goal equally.[/QUOTE]
No, that is what I said and that is what I meant. Improvised DIY firearms are not nearly as lethal or effective. The two go hand in hand. You concede that real guns have advantages over them. What are the advantages? If, according to you, improvised firearms are not any less lethal or less effective, and in the case of the bang stick cost less than $20 to make, a mere fraction of the price of a factory-made shotgun, then why is anyone using the factory-made shotguns at all? There has to be a reason. If they're just as good and costs next to nothing and you don't need to try to circumvent the legal process to acquire one, then what's the point of criminals using their more-expensive-but-not-any-better counterparts?
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40303860]In all honesty, his claim that a homemade weapon could never be as lethal as a factory-made one was all sorts of wrong.[/QUOTE]
I never stated they could never be as lethal as a factory-made one, but you also seem to be confusing "lethality" with the ability to kill someone at all, period. A BB gun can kill someone if you shoot them enough or in the right place, but I doubt you would choose one over a hunting rifle. Improvised weapons are lethal, but not nearly as effective. I could kill someone with a dull blade, but it is much easier with a sharp one. I could kill someone with my fists, but it is much easier with brass knuckles. I could kill someone with a bang stick, but it is much easier with an actual shotgun that you can load multiple rounds into and fire more than once in case you miss. The round does determine the effectiveness to a degree; so do the number of rounds that you can pump out in the event that you miss. So does the accuracy of the firearm.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40303557]You seem to think that a DIY firearm can only be a one-shot pen gun or something, while in fact you can build some pretty complex stuff out of basic steel slabs and using simple tools.
Fuck it, you can churn AK47s out of your garage if you're patient enough. Firearms aren't magical sci-fi contraptions, a Sten is essentially a sewer pipe with a spring and some gubbins inside, and it was good enough for the British army in WW2.[/QUOTE]
I know the history of the Sten and I know that efficient firearms can be made yourself. I also know that the great majority of criminals don't dedicate their time to home-making AK-47s despite the fact that they could, and instead the preferred gun is the handgun. Speaking of the Sten, does anyone know if improvised firearms are actually a significant problem in countries where firearms are mostly illegal to own, such as Britain? Is it seen on a large scale? Seeing as the counter to removing their legal source for firearms has become "they can just make shit just as good in their garages," I would like to see this as a major issue in a major country. It certainly isn't one in the U.S.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fhux;40308196]I'll only be answering this now as it was directed to me, but might respond to some of your other claims (for example I'd like to see a source on the claim about rape. What I find comes from 1979, but explains how 3% of rape attacks were finished when the victim was carrying a firearm, compared to the [I]37[/I]% of those against unarmed citizens) later when I do not need sleep.
First of all, I do believe, although I have yet to look up solid information about it, that banning guns would reduce the amount of spontaneous suicide. Violent crime and murder, however? If anything, they would both receive a major increase.
Even conservative studies find that 1 million US civilians use a gun for self-defense annually, not counting the obvious deterring factor that citizens carrying firearms create. They save lives, billions in* property, and reduce the burden on local law enforcement with most never firing a shot. Crime has dropped nationwide in the last 20 years without any substantial change in gun laws.
As I can see it, there is literally no reason to believe that more gun control would solve the problems you wish to solve. Instead, as you said, this has to do with other things, such as poverty and a lack of mental health care, which has been said many times before.
Sources:
[URL]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1[/URL]
[URL]http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/830/violent-crime-has-declined[/URL][/QUOTE]
Like I said, I may have been wrong about the rape survivor statistic. I'm going to go back and look at whatever source I looked at before.
I know that crime has slowly declined, but whether or not violent crime would drop even further with a change in gun laws is the question. I would like to see some studies since you brought it up that 1 million US civilians use a gun for self-defense annually. That seems like a pretty high number. A million people, not even a million separate incidents, but a million people? I don't see how you don't see that there might even be a chance that removing guns would reduce overall violent crime, considering firearms are the go-to weapon for that sort of thing and they are as lethal as people can legally get. I certainly am at odds with the idea that they would both receive a major increase. You say that, but I am sure you are also quick to point out that comparing countries with different gun control laws shows little correlation between gun restriction and reduction in violent crime, so you definitely couldn't say that it would receive a "major increase."
But again, as I said, this is why I'm in favor of the incremental reduction of gun rights. It's the fairest way of determining whether gun control actually will have an effect in America.
[quote]I never stated they could never be as lethal as a factory-made one,[/quote]
[quote]Improvised do-it-yourself firearms exist, but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke[/quote]
Uh
Oh well, as a nifty little counter-argument I'd like to point out that here in the magical land of pizza and slanted towers, we had a gradual [i]increase[/i] on gun rights over the years, and this had no impact on gun crime whatsoever. Right now we can buy things that would give Feinstein an aneurysm (and a couple of decades ago we couldn't) and yet things are fairly nice.
[editline]17th April 2013[/editline]
Also, your idea of eroding gun rights just to see if it really does anything is appalling. Why should those states with ridiculously lax gun control, yet the lowest crime ratios in the nation, get their rights infringed because crime is higher in completely unrelated states at the opposite end of the US?
"We'll disarm you because it might make things better, even if we're not sure" is not a valid excuse, you're really coming off as a horrible person.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40311065]Also, your idea of eroding gun rights just to see if it really does anything is appalling. Why should those states with ridiculously lax gun control, yet the lowest crime ratios in the nation, get their rights infringed because crime is higher in completely unrelated states at the opposite end of the US?
"We'll disarm you because it might make things better, even if we're not sure" is not a valid excuse, you're really coming off as a horrible person.[/QUOTE]
I'm not in any way in favor of gun control, but this right here is why it should definitely not be done on a federal level if it is done at all. It should be done state-by-state, truly letting the people decide if they want it or not. That way places like Kalifornia can still have their AWBs and standard-cap mag bans, and places like Vermont can still have what they're accustomed to. "Eroding" rights isn't something that should ever be done, but that's a different can of worms.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40311065]Uh
Oh well, as a nifty little counter-argument I'd like to point out that here in the magical land of pizza and slanted towers, we had a gradual [I]increase[/I] on gun rights over the years, and this had no impact on gun crime whatsoever. Right now we can buy things that would give Feinstein an aneurysm (and a couple of decades ago we couldn't) and yet things are fairly nice.[/QUOTE]
yes, they, in general, most improvised firearms, the ones that can be commonly and easily produced by an unskilled craftsman, the ones that we have most commonly seen in the U.S. and the world, are not as lethal or effective as actual firearms
[quote]Also, your idea of eroding gun rights just to see if it really does anything is appalling. Why should those states with ridiculously lax gun control, yet the lowest crime ratios in the nation, get their rights infringed because crime is higher in completely unrelated states at the opposite end of the US?
"We'll disarm you because it might make things better, even if we're not sure" is not a valid excuse, you're really coming off as a horrible person.[/quote]
really, i'm a horrible person because i am interested in advancing a cause that i believe will save lives
i have nothing but good intentions even if they are in your opinion misguided but that makes me a horrible person ok
even if i was a horrible person how about we drop the personal attacks because they have nothing to do with debate and aren't allowed in this forum anyway
edit:
we've already been through this shit once before, ask BFG
I'm just saying that using citizens as lab rats to test gun control measures of dubious utility is definitely not a nice thing. Especially when you have a nice quantity of places with lax gun laws andlow gun crime to further point out how silly the concept of "we NEED to ban everything that goes bang if we want to be safe" is.
In my opinion, allow a single pistol for self defense.
We shouldn't even be "testing" anything. We should be focusing on reducing crime and violent crime overall, because simply reducing gun crime alone (and even that has a big red [i]potentially effective[/i] label on it) is quite frankly unacceptable. I'm not saying don't bother; quite the opposite. I'm saying by choking out the rights of law-abiding citizens to reduce a small statistic is [i]not[/i] trying, and we should focus on the bigger picture.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40311787]I'm just saying that using citizens as lab rats to test gun control measures of dubious utility is definitely not a nice thing. Especially when you have a nice quantity of places with lax gun laws andlow gun crime to further point out how silly the concept of "we NEED to ban everything that goes bang if we want to be safe" is.[/QUOTE]
Alright, and that opinion is fine, but there's absolutely no reason to bring my personal character into it because of my own opinion. Especially when you haven't fully understood my opinion yet; I didn't call for an outright ban and confiscation of all firearms. That's the point of incremental restrictions. It won't all be taken away at once. And it wouldn't be the first time citizens have been used as lab rats. The states have been referred to as "laboratories of democracy," where a policy can be made and the results often decide whether that policy is adopted among a wider number of states or the entire country. Many of these policies are challenged by the Supreme Court at some point.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40311855]We shouldn't even be "testing" anything. We should be focusing on reducing crime and violent crime overall, because simply reducing gun crime alone (and even that has a big red [I]potentially effective[/I] label on it) is quite frankly unacceptable. I'm not saying don't bother; quite the opposite. I'm saying by choking out the rights of law-abiding citizens to reduce a small statistic is [I]not[/I] trying, and we should focus on the bigger picture.[/QUOTE]
I have already told you and many others throughout this thread that I don't believe this should be the only method of reducing overall violent crime that we try. It is not impossible to try multiple methods, and I believe we should. This is only one of them.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40311864]Alright, and that opinion is fine, but there's absolutely no reason to bring my personal character into it because of my own opinion. Especially when you haven't fully understood my opinion yet; I didn't call for an outright ban and confiscation of all firearms. That's the point of incremental restrictions. It won't all be taken away at once. And it wouldn't be the first time citizens have been used as lab rats. The states have been referred to as "laboratories of democracy," where a policy can be made and the results often decide whether that policy is adopted among a wider number of states or the entire country. Many of these policies are challenged by the Supreme Court at some point.
[/QUOTE]
But incremental restrictions are just as bad, because in the end you're still getting rid of all gun liberties, you're just doing it more slowly and more painfully.
And nothing is saying we HAVE to approach the general reduction of violence by including a ban like this. We could just try and use those other strategies you mentioned that provide a more proactive solution to the problem.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
