[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147584]It's kind of hard to research that subject accurately if you tailor your research methodology to fit a predetermined conclusion.[/QUOTE]
I guess when you fuck up once you can never try again
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53147619]I keep seeing this quasi-shitpost to the effect of, "it sure is a shame that America BANNED RESEARCH ON GUN CRIME."
However, people conveniently seem to forget that the Obama Administration payrolled [URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/nih-quietly-shelves-gun-research-program"]a historically unprecedented[/URL] gun-violence research program. It was controversial, and the subject of much scrutiny, given it's direct challenge of the "no funding for gun research" policy.
Then, for only one apparent reason, they quietly disbanded the program and shelved it.
Because it's most consistent and major preliminary conclusion was that gun ownership could not be linked directly to violent crime.
I find it hard not to imagine that, had the conclusion been otherwise, the program wouldn't have been very abruptly and quietly cancelled.
(Source: second result in Google for "obama gun research." You are invited to source your own research.)[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure you would need an 11 million dollar study to reach that conclusion. The stats we already have show us that there are places in this country with a huge amount of guns that are relatively safe, then there are places with ostensible gun bans like Chicago which hold records for shootings. Of course there are also the opposite situations where you have high-gun areas that are more violent than gun free areas.
I'm not one of those types who thinks that if you disappeared every gun that literally every criminal will turn to knives and hammers but I do think the violent crime problem in America is a bit more complex than which places have the most guns.
[editline]20th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147746]I guess when you fuck up once you can never try again[/QUOTE]
Not to say I oppose gun violence research in the least but given that we know the CDC can be made to reach conclusions first then do the research second, and that we know the current administration loves to censor or otherwise manipulate it's own bureaus, I wouldn't count on anything done under a Trump administration to be necessarily accurate.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53147754]I'm not even sure you would need an 11 million dollar study to reach that conclusion. The stats we already have show us that there are places in this country with a huge amount of guns that are relatively safe, then there are places with ostensible gun bans like Chicago which hold records for shootings. Of course there are also the opposite situations where you have high-gun areas that are more violent than gun free areas.
I'm not one of those types who thinks that if you disappeared every gun that literally every criminal will turn to knives and hammers but I do think the violent crime problem in America is a bit more complex than which places have the most guns.[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem with chicago is illinois is bordered by states with pretty lax gun laws so it's not too difficult to buy guns there if you really want to. Same for DC, which is near Virginia, another state with lax gun laws.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53147754]Not to say I oppose gun violence research in the least but given that we know the CDC can be made to reach conclusions first then do the research second, and that we know the current administration loves to censor or otherwise manipulate it's own bureaus, I wouldn't count on anything done under a Trump administration to be necessarily accurate.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah I was mostly speaking hypothetically if we had a president who wasn't up to his forehead in lies.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147387]Then what the hell are you banning bump stocks for?[/QUOTE]
Not my argument but from pro-Trump circles; Banning or otherwise regulating bump stocks is "easy" compared to other gun control measures being brought up right now because it's a niche product with little practical use other than being a range toy. This lets Trump regain some measure of high ground in the gun control debate by showing him able to compromise and ban the thing responsible for that Vegas shooting.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147744]Countless mass shootings with semi-automatic weapons have already done that for me.[/QUOTE]
This isnt even an argument. This is dumb shitposting because you couldnt defend your dumb strawman "hurr but what about mustard gas!!" arguments.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147785]This isnt even an argument. This is dumb shitposting because you couldnt defend your dumb strawman "hurr but what about mustard gas!!" arguments.[/QUOTE]
This isn't even an argument, it's just you trying to distract from my point (which is that semi-automatic weaponry has caused countless mass shootings in the states) by calling me dumb.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147805]This isn't even an argument, it's just you trying to distract from my point (which is that semi-automatic weaponry has caused countless mass shootings in the states) by calling me dumb.[/QUOTE]
You have a really odd way of determining causation. Wasn't spiraling depression, abuse, and radicalization... wasn't gang activity... nope, caused by the rifle. Every time. Yep. That's it. Because murders don't happen without guns, no sir.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53147619]I keep seeing this quasi-shitpost to the effect of, "it sure is a shame that America BANNED RESEARCH ON GUN CRIME."
However, people conveniently seem to forget that the Obama Administration payrolled [URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/nih-quietly-shelves-gun-research-program"]a historically unprecedented[/URL] gun-violence research program. It was controversial, and the subject of much scrutiny, given it's direct challenge of the "no funding for gun research" policy.
Then, for only one apparent reason, they quietly disbanded the program and shelved it.
Because it's most consistent and major preliminary conclusion was that gun ownership could not be linked directly to violent crime.
I find it hard not to imagine that, had the conclusion been otherwise, the program wouldn't have been very abruptly and quietly cancelled.
(Source: second result in Google for "obama gun research." You are invited to source your own research.)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"Private groups and foundations donate millions of dollars to fund firearm research every year," says Lars Dalseide, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action in Fairfax, Virginia. "When the government gets involved, and political agendas are allowed to supersede scientific analysis, the end product is nothing but a waste of tax-payer money."[/QUOTE] I find it hard to believe that private organizations can't be affected by political agendas.
Also I might be blind but I've read your source like three times and I'm not seeing
[QUOTE]Because it's most consistent and major preliminary conclusion was that gun ownership could not be linked directly to violent crime.[/QUOTE]
this
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147785]This isnt even an argument. This is dumb shitposting because you couldnt defend your dumb strawman "hurr but what about mustard gas!!" arguments.[/QUOTE]
Yeah like how does mustard gas work even if as a joke argument? Other than trying to gas yourself out or something it has fuck all for uses for anything even as far as entertainment goes and in no way shape or form can be compared to something like a bumpstock which can be used for entertainment purposes.
Note I'm not defending either way here, I just thought the mustard gas comment was.... well yeah.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;53147811]Yeah like how does mustard gas work even if as a joke argument? Other than trying to gas yourself out or something it has fuck all for uses for anything even as far as entertainment goes and in no way shape or form can be compared to something like a bumpstock.[/QUOTE]
I like to go to the gas range and gas paper targets with my recreational mustard gas. Don't you?
Ever since the mustard gas ban, I've had to resort to simple tear gas for recreational purposes, while criminals are still running around with mustard gas in gas free zones. It's a shame, I tell you what.
-snip-+.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147805]This isn't even an argument, it's just you trying to distract from my point (which is that semi-automatic weaponry has caused countless mass shootings in the states) by calling me dumb.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]Take a gander, compare the numbers.[/URL] Then try and tell me that semi-automatic rifles are a huge problem when they consistently are used for less murder than knives, fists, and house tools. Keep in mind that the "rifles" figure includes semi-automatic rifles, hunting rifles, sniper rifles, and even .22's. Semi-automatic riles are probably the most popular kind of gun sold these days because they are the most versatile. Sorry, but the amount of death that is associated with them simply doesn't warrant further restrictions.
Also your point about mass shootings is pretty moot given that most "mass shootings" are just gang violence using handguns. They lowered the criteria of a mass shooting to get the total number of qualifying incidents up as a scare tactic.
So cut it with the rifle hate, the paranoia doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147805]This isn't even an argument, it's just you trying to distract from my point (which is that semi-automatic weaponry has caused countless mass shootings in the states) by calling me dumb.[/QUOTE]
I wasnt aware that guns spontaneously generate violent behavior.
Bump firing is irresponsible as fuck.
With or without a bump stock you have jack shit for control of your firearm, and most semi-autos are not designed to fire 'full auto'.
Through bump firing or heavy modification it can be done, but you're liable to turn your gun into a hand grenade in the event of a failure. Or you could get a runaway going and the gun won't stop firing until it's out of ammo, because of something broken or a deliberate mod.
Every action requires three things.
Motivation (why you do it),Method/Plan (How you do it), and Means (what you do it with)
This also means that there are three ways to counter school shootings or mass violence in general.
You can increase event security and have better safety protocols in schools to hinder the Method/Plan part of an action.
You can limit access to firearms or other weapons to hinder the means part of an action.
The problem with these two methods is that given sufficient motivation they can be overcome. Thus they are not effective solutions.
To effectively reduce the overall instances of violent action you have to go after the motivations of the perpetrators. Obviously this is a massive endeavor as violent action can be motivated by anything from poverty to mental health issues, but it is still the most effective way to curtail violence.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147842]Every action requires three things.
Motivation (why you do it),Method/Plan (How you do it), and Means (what you do it with)
This also means that there are three ways to counter school shootings or mass violence in general.
You can increase event security and have better safety protocols in schools to hinder the Method/Plan part of an action.
You can limit access to firearms or other weapons to hinder the means part of an action.
The problem with these two methods is that given sufficient motivation they can be overcome. Thus they are not effective solutions.
To effectively reduce the overall instances of violent action you have to go after the motivations of the perpetrators. Obviously this is a massive endeavor as violent action can be motivated by anything from poverty to mental health issues, but it is still the most effective way to curtail violence.[/QUOTE]
Because we can’t solve all gun crime by introducing things like semi automatic assault weapons bans we shouldn’t try solving some of it? I don’t see any other countries that have as big of an issue with mass shootings committed with semi automatic assault rifles outside of war torn countries. So what are they doing right that we aren’t?
[editline]21st February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53147830]If we allow cars with top speeds of 150mph+, which have no purpose other than to break the law when no one is looking, I don't see why we need to ban this. I always drift to sports cars when I read about gun bans.
Banning this doesn't solve society's view on mental health. Doesn't stop the media from turning shooters into celebrities. Doesn't fix America's shit mental healthcare access. It doesn't change a single thing. Its a bandaid on a society and mental health issue.[/QUOTE]
Apples to oranges. Cars are designed with sport and utility in mind, semi automatic assault rifles are designed to be highly efficient at killing shit.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147867]So what are they doing right that we aren’t?[/QUOTE]
Off the top of my head, and note this isn't for all countries but just a list of recurring themes:
- Reliable, cheap healthcare for people of almost all incomes
- Variety of social and economic safety nets
- Large array of mental health facilities
- Competent police forces that seek community ties
- A strong education system from an early age that tends to either be subsidized or at the very least cheap
- A society that focuses on the group as opposed to the individual
- Shorter sentences for non violent crimes and a focus on rehabilitation
Guns themselves are not the cause for violence, simply a tool. The horrific rates of violent crime in cities like Chicago or Rockford are not entirely tied to weapons, but instead a cascading series of issues that essentially lock people into a mindset of "I have to fight my way out of this". In America, if you are born poor, you have a minute chance of getting anywhere in life unless you're incredibly perseverent or have a massive amount of support from people around you. It is not uncommon to basically see a vicious cycle of being thrown into prison at an early age for minor offenses, and come out, not be able to get a job, turn to crime, rinse and repeat. Guns unfortunately find their way into this cycle as gangs are formed to defend a community, and quickly become corrupt elements that use greed and violence to cement themselves.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53147878]Off the top of my head, and note this isn't for all countries but just a list of recurring themes:
1 - Reliable, cheap healthcare for people of almost all incomes
2 - Variety of social and economic safety nets
3 - Large array of mental health facilities
4 - Competent police forces that seek community ties
5 - A strong education system from an early age
6 - A society that focuses on the group as opposed to the individual
Guns themselves are not the cause for violence, simply a tool. The horrific rates of violent crime in cities like Chicago or Rockford are not entirely tied to weapons, but instead a cascading series of issues that essentially lock people into a mindset of "I have to fight my way out of this".[/QUOTE]
I understand that guns themselves don’t inherently cause violence. We get that, it doesn’t need to be harped on anymore. We should implement measures like you described as well, but also understand that it’s not a catch all. We can also choose to make it more difficult for people to access the means used in the commissions of these crimes.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147882]We can also choose to make it more difficult for people to access the means used in the commissions of these crimes.[/QUOTE]
Such as having the ATF and FBI do their jobs, and not randomly try to pinch law abiding citizens. Find ways to close private sale loopholes, enforce digital copies of transfer papers, try to stop straw purchases, etc.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147867]Because we can’t solve all gun crime by introducing things like semi automatic assault weapons bans we shouldn’t try solving some of it?[/quote]
Because its a dumb unimplementable half solution? Why are you treating gun violence as a separate thing from regular violence? Banning guns does not stop violent behavior. At best it reduces the body count.
[quote]
I don’t see any other countries that have as big of an issue with mass shootings committed with semi automatic assault rifles outside of war torn countries. So what are they doing right that we aren’t?[/QUOTE] I dont know why you're harping on about "semi-automatic assault rifles" when the account for an overwhelming minority of gun violence. Furthermore most other comparatively developed countries dont have the crippling social issues the US has. These social issues as well as our inadequate mental health system predispose our country to high levels of violence.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53147888]Such as having the ATF and FBI do their jobs, and not randomly try to pinch law abiding citizens. Find ways to close private sale loopholes, enforce digital copies of transfer papers, try to stop straw purchases, etc.[/QUOTE]
That’s all well and good but at the end of the day, the Parklnd shooter purchased his weapon without any of those things being a factor. Vegas shooter, same thing. Almost every other mass shooter in the last few years, same thing. They purchased their weapons legally, and even with increased restrictions, some (maybe not all) would have still be able to purchase their weapons.
[editline]21st February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53147891]Oh right, sport and utility. You need to go 160mph for utilitarian purposes.[/QUOTE]
How many times has someone drove a car 160 mph into a school and killed 15 kids? Or injured 500 and killed 50 at a Vegas concert? Or killed elementary school children sitting in class?
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147890]Because its a dumb unimplementable half solution? Why are you treating gun violence as a separate thing from regular violence? Banning guns does not stop violent behavior. At best it reduces the body count.
I dont know why you're harping on about "semi-automatic assault rifles" when the account for an overwhelming minority of gun violence. Furthermore most other comparatively developed countries dont have the crippling social issues the US has. These social issues as well as our inadequate mental health system predispose our country to high levels of violence.[/QUOTE]
OK so reducing body count of mass shootings is not a worthwhile objective?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147893]How many times has someone drove a car 160 mph into a school and killed 15 kids? Or injured 500 and killed 50 at a Vegas concert? Or killed elementary school children sitting in class?[/QUOTE]
Are vehicle ramming attacks a new concept to you?
I'd actually hazard a guess that vehicle ramming attacks have higher average body counts than mass shootings.
[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;53147835]Bump firing is irresponsible as fuck.
With or without a bump stock you have jack shit for control of your firearm, and most semi-autos are not designed to fire 'full auto'.
Through bump firing or heavy modification it can be done, but you're liable to turn your gun into a hand grenade in the event of a failure. Or you could get a runaway going and the gun won't stop firing until it's out of ammo, because of something broken or a deliberate mod.[/QUOTE]
bumpfiring with the stock is no different from just pulling the trigger fast. the whole point of the stock is to make it more controllable than doing it off your belt loop. I disagree that you have "jack shit control" there is many videos on youtube of people getting full magazines on target bumpfiring with and without a stock.
Most semi autos would run just fine if you stuck the right parts in to make it run full auto. a gun turns into a handgrenade when theres an over pressure in the case, or you've been shooting it so much that the temper fails, which can be achieved with a bolt action, so I'm not sure what you're point is.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147882]I understand that guns themselves don’t inherently cause violence. We get that, it doesn’t need to be harped on anymore. We should implement measures like you described as well, but also understand that it’s not a catch all. We can also choose to make it more difficult for people to access the means used in the commissions of these crimes.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that removing access to certain means is just a roadblock to a sufficiently motivated individual. The kind of person that commits act of mass violence is going to be highly motivated for one reason or another. If its not guns then its gonna be a bomb. If not a bomb then a car. If not a car then a knife. At the end of the day all that banning guns will do is maybe decrease the bodycount sometimes.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147893]
How many times has someone drove a car 160 mph into a school and killed 15 kids? Or injured 500 and killed 50 at a Vegas concert? Or killed elementary school children sitting in class?[/QUOTE]
I mean [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack]someone did it with a truck[/url] and killed 86, wounding 434
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147900]Are vehicle ramming attacks a new concept to you?[/QUOTE]
You’re being obtuse. Can you honestly imagine someone racking up the same amount of kills and injuries as any of the crimes described above? No?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147906]You’re being obtuse. Can you honestly imagine someone racking up the same amount of kills and injuries as any of the crimes described above? No?[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding me? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack[/url]
Do you not realize how deadly vehicles are?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53147905]I mean [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack]someone did it with a truck[/url] and killed 86, wounding 434[/QUOTE]
How many times has that happened compared to the incident rate of mass shootings with semi automatic weapons in the United States?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53147899]OK so reducing body count of mass shootings is not a worthwhile objective?[/QUOTE]
Compared to reducing the instances of massed violence its not really as important of an objective. Especially since that kind of gun control is not a realistic goal in the US barring a 50 year long antigun campaign and billions in lobbying money.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.