Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602200]I'll say this once. Correlation != causation. We have some of the highest levels of income inequality, some of the worst mental healthcare and a whole plethora of other issues that also play into the gun crime equation. If correlation did equal causation, then i'd be 20x more likely to comit a crime, and yet here we are.[/QUOTE] Yet all these studies, havard approved, are wrong because you don't want them to be right. access to firearms vs possession of firearms is markedly different. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602203]This isn't an argument to ban guns, it's an argument to address poverty and other issues that actually have a firm correlation with the intent to commit crime You are so shortsighted I cannot believe it[/QUOTE] "You can't win an argument by dismissing opposing viewpoints" and it seems you're the one who's short sighted.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602209]Yet all these studies, havard approved, are wrong because you don't want them to be right. access to firearms vs possession of firearms is markedly different. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "You can't win an argument by dismissing opposing viewpoints" and it seems you're the one who's short sighted.[/QUOTE] You are incoherent, learn how to have a discussion "No u" isn't a valid response either

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602217]Which is why we have SCOTUS, to interpret the constitution. And guess what? They've ruled time and time again in favor of the second ammendment. So no, the founding fathers might not have seen it coming, but they left a system in place for just that reason.[/QUOTE] Give this a read [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html[/url] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602218]You are incoherent, learn how to have a discussion "No u" isn't a valid response either[/QUOTE] Nice ad hom. perhaps you should actually try disproving my arguments than attacking my character.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602222]Give this a read [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html[/url] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] Nice ad hom. perhaps you should actually try disproving my arguments than attacking my character.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should actually try reading my posts instead of slicing them up to fit your strawmanning and obsessive anti gun spew and you'd see that I've already addressed and dismantled every half-assed argument you've copied from CNN The signers of the Constitution clearly intended for the citizenry to be on equal footing with the government in terms of armament, which is a right we've already given up to gun grabbers, there is clearly no direct correlation between gun ownership and crime rates (but some related factors can cause trends in both that would make it appear that there is a correlation; such as poverty, mental health, education...) as demonstrated by other countries that have guns and don't have big problems with crime like we do

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602187]I didn't say fucking anything about switzerland Try Norway, where you can own automatics Italy, Czech Republic, there's lots I'm not going to go down the list for you, google it, where you can own firearms is irrelevant, the point is many of these places don't have an associated crime rate[/QUOTE] Norway, where automatics are banned for citizens unless for purposes of collecting? Where you need a license to own a gun, of which you need to document a need for owning the gun? Italy, where all guns must be registered with the police, and you need a purchase authorisation to be allowed to buy a gun, which doesn't even allow you to carry or use it as you need another license for that? Czech Republic, where you need to pass a series of exams to get a license to own a gun, and where you need permission from the police before you can own a semi-automatic? lmao. Every other developed country has stricter gun control than the US, and as I'll say again, many of those countries are recognised as more-free than the US.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602225]What are you talking about? It's a well known fact that correlation doesn't prove causation. Are you trying to suggest that harvard is above that? Because thats one of the first things you're taught in a science/statistics course.[/QUOTE] Saying "Correlation =/= Causation" isn't correct, because sometimes correlation does equal causation. look at the CO^2 levels and climate change. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602226]Perhaps you should actually try reading my posts instead of slicing them up to fit your strawmanning and obsessive anti gun spew and you'd see that I've already addressed and dismantled every half-assed argument you've copied from CNN[/QUOTE] Except you haven't, you're spewing rightist propaganda to prove your point. where's the research, or your data?

[QUOTE=sb27;50602231]Norway, where automatics are banned for citizens unless for purposes of collecting? Where you need a license to own a gun, of which you need to document a need for owning the gun? Italy, where all guns must be registered with the police, and you need a purchase authorisation to be allowed to buy a gun, which doesn't even allow you to carry or use it as you need another license for that? Czech Republic, where you need to pass a test to get a license to own a gun, and where you need permission from the police before you can own a semi-automatic? lmao[/QUOTE] Yeah you can own guns in all those places and they don't have gun crime problems like we do, what are you lmaoing about?? Those places don't put you on a list of literal actual criminals to be monitored 24/7 just in case you commit a crime. Each of them have found a way to allow the population access to guns without being excessively infringing or criminalizing them.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602236]You have to prove causation. The studies you provided certainly never came to the conclusion that guns CAUSE crime.[/QUOTE] Well, that's a blanket statement isn't it? if we narrow that down to "access to more guns cause more gun crime" it's true. How are you going to shoot someone with a firearm without access to any firearm?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602244]Well, that's a blanket statement isn't it? if we narrow that down to "access to more guns cause more gun crime" it's true. How are you going to shoot someone with a firearm without access to any firearm?[/QUOTE] If this is the logic you're going with we should ban cars to stop drunk driving

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602240]Yeah you can own guns in all those places and they don't have gun crime problems like we do, what are you lmaoing about?? Those places don't put you on a list of literal actual criminals to be monitored 24/7 just in case you commit a crime.[/QUOTE] Yet we have 113 Guns per capita, and norway has 31, and virtually no gun crime. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602246]If this is the logic you're going with we should ban cars to stop drunk driving[/QUOTE] and that would stop drunk driving. the two are incomparable. By the way, I've never said i wanted to ban guns.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602240]Yeah you can own guns in all those places and they don't have gun crime problems like we do, what are you lmaoing about?? Those places don't put you on a list of literal actual criminals to be monitored 24/7 just in case you commit a crime. Each of them have found a way to allow the population access to guns without being excessively infringing or criminalizing them.[/QUOTE] I take it you didn't read my post, as I mentioned for Italy and Czech Republic that you need to register guns with the police for the former, and where the police have to grant you permission to own a (semi-automatic) gun for the latter? Gun access in every European country is more-strict than the US. And that's part of the reason why those countries have lower gun crime than the US.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602257]This is true. But it also never explored the actual cause of the crime in the first place, thus correlation is the only thing established. But to actually address the cause of crime we have to admit we have problems, and that costs money so we'll just demonize guns instead.[/QUOTE] Or you know, they were barred from doing it thanks to donations by the gun lobby. [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html[/url]

Interestingly Norway has less gun crime than Australia, even though Australia has fewer guns per capita There goes your magic easymode correlation, is it time to examine the real issues yet?

[QUOTE=sb27;50602260]I take it you didn't read my post, as I mentioned for Italy and Czech Republic that you need to register guns with the police for the former, and where the police have to grant you permission to own a (semi-automatic) gun for the latter? Gun access in every European country is more-strict than the US. And that's part of the reason why those countries have lower gun crime than the US.[/QUOTE] I'm not opposed to control measures I am opposed to 24/7 monitoring of gun owners and lumping them with felons even though they haven't committed crimes I am also opposed to trusting this government with deciding what's fair for me considering this government empowered a 3 letter agency to determine that a shoestring was a machine gun

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602264]Interestingly Norway has less gun crime than Australia, even though Australia has fewer guns per capita There goes your correlation[/QUOTE] Except interestingly enough, Australia has a great buy-back program for gun owners, which is why they have a lower level of guns. guns in Australia are also much more concentrated, like the USA versus the sparser population of norway. [url]http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/new-data-reveals-the-high-number-of-guns-per-person-in-australias-richest-suburbs/news-story/9ee47e8a89e8700adda0d6bce51a2559[/url]

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602273]Except interestingly enough, Australia has a great buy-back program for gun owners, which is why they have a lower level of guns. guns in Australia are also much more concentrated, like the USA versus the sparser population of norway. [url]http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/new-data-reveals-the-high-number-of-guns-per-person-in-australias-richest-suburbs/news-story/9ee47e8a89e8700adda0d6bce51a2559[/url][/QUOTE] They still have a higher gun crime rate despite their lower ownership rate, meaning the correlation is not between those two statistics, there are other factors that you don't want to acknowledge because it weakens your argument to do so

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602271]Again, fair enough. But to blatently ignore the fact that most gun crime occurs in inner city areas, by people who have low prospects, is just foolish. Gun crime would certainly go down if we started actually addressing the root cause of crime in the first place: poverty and poor future investment. But again, its cheaper to demonize the gun for the problem, than to address the fact that the system is broken.[/QUOTE] That still doesn't explain why the NRA of all groups are the ones in who paid for and lobbied against any research into gun violence. I never ignored it, but without so much access to guns, like before said, there would not be as much gun crime in those areas.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602283]That still doesn't explain why the NRA of all groups are the ones in who paid for and lobbied against any research into gun violence. I never ignored it, but without so much access to guns, like before said, there would not be as much gun crime in those areas.[/QUOTE] No there'd just be other types of crime which isn't really an improvement Is crime only bad when committed with a firearm or something??? If you solve the issues that are creating crime, you don't need to take expensive property and irreplaceable heirlooms from people who weren't committing crime to begin with.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602110]Repeating arms were already in use when the United States was founded, so you are wrong[/QUOTE] Care to name a few? Other than exotic one-off prototypes and battery guns? AFAIK the Girandoni air rifle was the first non-muzzleloading infantry firearm, and that was around 20 years after the constitution.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602282]They still have a higher gun crime rate despite their lower ownership rate, meaning the correlation is not between those two statistics[/QUOTE] While i must concede on that point, there was a lot more saturation before the buy-back program, so the rate was higher, and after the buy-back program the rate of suicides and murders was a lot lower. [url]http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback[/url] besides that, the purpose of the guns was different as well. the guns in norway are used for hunting while the guns in australia are used for home defense mostly.

[QUOTE=nox;50602289]Care to name a few? Other than exotic one-off prototypes and battery guns?[/QUOTE] Puckle gun, a revolving "machine gun" patented in 1718, unsuccessful due to flintlock troubles - but those who saw it knew the direction firearms technology was heading More significantly, the Girandoni air rifle, which was actually accepted into Austrian military service in 1780 (Constitution ratified 1788) and used by Lewis & Clark

[QUOTE=nox;50602289]Care to name a few? Other than exotic one-off prototypes and battery guns? AFAIK the Girandoni air rifle was the first infantry firearm with a magazine, and that was around 20 years after the constitution.[/QUOTE] The Girandoni was far off from a one-time exoitc, the fucking Austrian military equipped certain units with it and Lewis+Clark ended up taking one with them lmao [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] The Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the Bill of Rights in 1791

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50601896]Anti-Gun doesn't care, in fact many of them are in full support of the legal ramifications.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty anti-gun and I think this is pretty fucked.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602288]No there'd just be other types of crime which isn't really an improvement Is crime only bad when committed with a firearm or something??? If you solve the issues that are creating crime, you don't need to take expensive property and irreplaceable heirlooms from people who weren't committing crime to begin with.[/QUOTE] and so your solution is to solve all crime everywhere at once, and hope for the best to not take guns away from "innocent people". The type of crime is a lot different as well. there would be less crime with knives than with guns. people simply don't want to be up close and personal with a knife, and it takes a lot more than three stab wounds to kill someone.

The Girandoni was in Service in Austria from 1780 to 1815

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602293]While i must concede on that point, there was a lot more saturation before the buy-back program, so the rate was higher, and after the buy-back program the rate of suicides and murders was a lot lower. [url]http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback[/url] besides that, the purpose of the guns was different as well. the guns in norway are used for hunting while the guns in australia are used for home defense mostly.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/q2aVqlH.png[/img] The bare statistics show pretty clearly that the ban/buyback had no effect on the already declining gun crime rate

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602294]Puckle gun, a revolving "machine gun" patented in 1718, unsuccessful due to flintlock troubles - but those who saw it knew the direction firearms technology was heading More significantly, the Girandoni air rifle, which was actually accepted into Austrian military service in 1780 (Constitution ratified 1788) and used by Lewis & Clark[/QUOTE] "The Girardoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply." is a lot different than 17 contained .38 explosions in a handgun.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602304]and so your solution is to solve all crime everywhere at once, and hope for the best to not take guns away from "innocent people". The type of crime is a lot different as well. there would be less crime with knives than with guns. people simply don't want to be up close and personal with a knife, and it takes a lot more than three stab wounds to kill someone.[/QUOTE] My solution is not to chuck trillions of dollars of property into a furnace, much of which consists of irreplaceable historic antiques, on a feeling that it might put a bit of a dent in an already relatively low crime rate

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602311]"The Girardoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply." is a lot different than 17 contained .38 explosions in a handgun.[/QUOTE] Yeah and a 2016 BMW 550i is a lot different from a 1788 horse and buggy Technology changes, they knew it was changing, they didn't write the Constitution and go "Yep, that's it, humanity has reached its technological climax"

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602308][img]http://i.imgur.com/q2aVqlH.png[/img] The bare statistics show pretty clearly that the ban/buyback had no effect on the already declining gun crime rate[/QUOTE] Already declining? Do you know how to read a chart? it was still on a rough mean before the gun law was introduced, which declined from 516, to 312, in two years, a decrease of 40%.