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

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602318]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%.[/QUOTE] These numbers are small enough that statistical anomalies affect them greatly so you can't go "oh yeah this one year there were only 312" when the next year is back up to 347 which is no insignificant change when you are just looking at percentages There is a clear downward trend that goes back farther than 1988 Do you know how to ingest statistics? Apparently not

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602312]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] When compared to previous years, yeah it's lower, but the rest of the western would would like a word with you. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602313]No it doesn't. I'm an EMT, I regularly see people dead from a single stab wound. It's all about what gets hit. Also his solution is the same as mine: address the problems of poverty, inequality, and mental health, and gun crime goes down, all without restricting or taking anyone's rights arbitrarily.[/QUOTE] The people killed with knives are already killed with knives. it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. We have no idea how many gun deaths would eventually be commited with a knife, so lack of information. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602316]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] that is extremely true, and why the US congress began REGULATING automobiles, like they should be REGULATING guns.

[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] I think you're ignoring the overall point which is that the founding fathers of the us had some semblance of an idea about where firearm technology may go.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602334]These numbers are small enough that statistical anomalies affect them greatly so you can't go "oh yeah this one year there were only 312" when the next year is back up to 347 which is no insignificant change when you are just looking at percentages There is a clear downward trend that goes back farther than 1988 Do you know how to ingest statistics? Apparently not[/QUOTE] So you're saying that the drop from 674 to 312 in 10 years was already going to happen? because in that timeframe there was a buyback of 650,000 guns, out of the hands of criminals and law abiding citizens alike, had nothing to do with the buyback at all? just a statistical anomaly? i suppose bernie sanders was right when he said it's embarrassing to explain the mental gymnastics conservatives go through to be pro-gun.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602346]So you're saying that the drop from 674 to 312 in 10 years was already going to happen? because in that timeframe there was a buyback of 650,000 guns, out of the hands of criminals and law abiding citizens alike, had nothing to do with the buyback at all? just a statistical anomaly? i suppose bernie sanders was right when he said it's embarrassing to explain the mental gymnastics conservatives go through to be pro-gun.[/QUOTE] I support(ed?) Bernie Sanders lol and yeah I'm saying exactly that, those 650,000 guns weren't being used in crimes. Criminals didn't go "oh I can get an outback steakhouse gift card for the gun that provides me with a criminal career" But nice try painting me as some crazy right winger

[QUOTE=bdd458;50602344]I think you're ignoring the overall point which is that the founding fathers of the us had some semblance of an idea about where firearm technology may go.[/QUOTE] I am ignoring that point because it is a completely idiotic and facile one, and as well as cannot be proved.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602353]I am ignoring that point because it is a completely idiotic and facile one, and as well as cannot be proved.[/QUOTE] What the fuck "The sky is green." "No, the sky is blue." "That's idiotic. And you can't prove it!"

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602352]I support(ed?) Bernie Sanders lol and yeah I'm saying exactly that, those 650,000 guns weren't being used in crimes. Criminals didn't go "oh I can get an outback steakhouse gift card for the gun that provides me with a criminal career"[/QUOTE] Yet apparently the drop in gun [B]crime[/B] was a miracle, because criminals suddenly just didn't want to shoot someone anymore, not because there were fewer firearms.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602357]Yet apparently the drop in gun [B]crime[/B] was a miracle, because criminals suddenly just didn't want to shoot someone anymore, not because there were fewer firearms.[/QUOTE] It was going down already because of improvements in poverty rates, education, mental health, etc... There was no sudden drop after the ban or buyback. It continued decreasing at the same rate that it had been.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602356]What the fuck "The sky is green." "No, the sky is blue." "That's idiotic. And you can't prove it!"[/QUOTE] Okay, since they knew about some obscure invention in 1718 of a repeating shot failure, and foresaw the development of a weapon developed in 1780 based on an [I]air rifle[/I] design, they suddenly knew about semi-automatic rifles and machineguns being developed some 100 years after the ratification of the constitution? That's idiotic and facile, and you representing the argument is also facile. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602358]It was going down already because of improvements in poverty rates, education, mental health, etc... There was no sudden drop after the ban or buyback. It continued decreasing at the same rate that it had been.[/QUOTE] Except it wasn't and it did drop right after, by an entire 20% then another 20% the next year?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602364]Okay, since they knew about some obscure invention in 1718 of a repeating shot failure, and foresaw the development of a weapon developed in 1780 based on an [I]air rifle[/I] design, they suddenly knew about semi-automatic rifles and machineguns being developed some 100 years after the ratification of the constitution? That's idiotic and facile, and you representing the argument is also facile. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] Except it wasn't and it did drop right after, by an entire 20% then another 20% the next year?[/QUOTE] I am pro controls but you are refusing to see the facts when they're laid in front of your face and it's ridiculous. I'm done here.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602371]I am pro controls but you are refusing to see the facts when they're laid in front of your face and it's ridiculous. I'm done here.[/QUOTE] You are done here because you have no facts and have not laid any in front of my face, and are leaving because you're too frustrated to actually prove your point.

Semi-automatic rifles and machine guns are rarely/never used in crime, respectively. A ban on either will have no effect on crime. Only piss off law abiding citizens.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602353]I am ignoring that point because it is a completely idiotic and facile one, and as well as cannot be proved.[/QUOTE] or on the flipside you're ignoring it because it goes against your narrative that the founding fathers were idiots who couldnt forsee any sort of technological change and thus could only have meant muskets and cannons (btw, iirc artillery companies in the early US were privately owned and operated and not part of the larger US Forces unless needed though its been a while since ive read up on that and it may have only been during the revolution) All im saying is that the founding fathers weren't idiots and some moat likely could see that both the nature of weapons and warfare was changing. If they meant muskets they would have said muskets.

[QUOTE=OvB;50602378]Semi-automatic rifles and machine guns are rarely/never used in crime, respectively. A ban on either will have no effect on crime. Only piss off law abiding citizens.[/QUOTE] The shooting in orlando was with a semi-automatic which with a right buttstock can be converted to fully auto by bumpfiring.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50602382]or on the flipside you're ignoring it because it goes against your narrative that the founding fathers were idiots who couldnt forsee any sort of technological change and thus could only have meant muskets and cannons (btw, iirc artillery companies in the early US were privately owned and operated and not part of the larger US Forces unless needed though its been a while since ive read up on that and it may have only been during the revolution)[/QUOTE] Where did i ever say that? to say they were smart enough to see the change from muzzle loaders to breach loaders is okay, but to say they knew that semi-automatics would come out in 100 years is facile. have you ever read any newspapers from that era? not a single one mentions new guns or otherwise, even in the 1800's with napoleon, there were bigger things going on.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602383]The shooting in orlando was with a semi-automatic which with a right buttstock can be converted to fully auto by bumpfiring.[/QUOTE] Which would still make it statistically unlikely for a semi or fully automatic rifle to be used in crime. I care much more about stopping actual crime rather than taking might be murder weapons out of might be criminals.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602383]The shooting in orlando was with a semi-automatic which with a right buttstock can be converted to fully auto by bumpfiring.[/QUOTE] Take the number of gun deaths and look at what percentage is that of machine guns and semi-automatic weapons. It's a drop in a bucket. Most gun related crime use pistols. Most gun related deaths are suicides. Banning scary rifles literally does not impede either of these.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602388]The shooting in orlando is also a statistical anomoly. Your point? His still stands, by fbi statistics rifles are used less than any other firearm, including shotguns.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OvB;50602378]Semi-automatic rifles and machine guns are [B]rarely/never [/B]used in crime, respectively. A ban on either will have [B]no effect[/B] on crime. Only piss off law abiding citizens.[/QUOTE] he's saying that banning either would have literally no effect on crime whatsoever. I agree it's an anomaly, but it still killed 50 people. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50602393]Take the number of gun deaths and look at what percentage is that of machine guns and semi-automatic weapons. It's a drop in a bucket. Most gun related crime use pistols. Most gun related deaths are suicides. Banning scary rifles literally does not impede either of these.[/QUOTE] I said this in a past thread [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50495167]Gun control hasn't even had the chance to work. Reason being that people outside of California can buy firearms in Arizona and just cross the border. In a truly gun controlled area that wouldn't happen. It's my opinion that by banning pistols, not shotguns or rifles. It'd cut down on murders with registered weapons and would also make it harder for criminals to get ahold of. Most gun violence I've seen is from handguns, not assault rifles or even regular rifles. Handguns are easier to conceal and easier to kill someone with since it's lighter and more ergonomic.[/QUOTE] i understand that.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602399]he's saying that banning either would have literally no effect on crime whatsoever. I agree it's an anomaly, but it still killed 50 people.[/QUOTE] Which is still an anomaly. It certainly does [I]not[/I] justify this "guilty until proven innocent" mindset Hawaii has introduced. I'm sorry, but you don't get to lump the law-abiding majority in with criminals because of hypothetical misuse of...well, anything. That's a dangerous and unacceptable line of reasoning.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602407]Just bringing this to the new page.[/QUOTE] my point is [I]he[/I] didn't do it, but people [I]can[/I] make fully auto weapons from them.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;50602409]Which is still an anomaly. It certainly does [I]not[/I] justify this "guilty until proven innocent" mindset Hawaii has introduced. I'm sorry, but you don't get to lump the law-abiding majority in with criminals because of hypothetical misuse of...well, anything. That's a dangerous and unacceptable line of reasoning.[/QUOTE] again, how is this guilty till proven innocent? there's no punishment, their name is just in a database. if someone commits a crime with a weapon unregistered to that database means that they can tack on a charge correlated to that. it's nothing more and nothing less. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602413]With time and heavy modification. But you can also just build guns with time and materials.[/QUOTE] you can still turn an semi-auto ar-15 into a fully auto just by changing your stock.

Thinking the founding fathers didn't have semi-automatic weapons in mind and therefore it is ok to curb the right to own them is like saying free speech shouldn't be allowed on TV, Radio, or the Internet and free speech is only limited to the spoken word and print publishing.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602416]again, how is this guilty till proven innocent? there's no punishment, their name is just in a database. if someone commits a crime with a weapon unregistered to that database means that they can tack on a charge correlated to that. it's nothing more and nothing less.[/QUOTE] It's a federal criminal records database and they're doing under the assumption every gun owner is going to be a criminal so they can nab them when they commit a crime. What exactly is this supposed to accomplish???

[QUOTE=wystan;50602423]Thinking the founding fathers didn't have semi-automatic weapons in mind and therefore it is ok to curb the right to own them is like saying free speech shouldn't be allowed on TV, Radio, or the Internet and free speech is only limited to the spoken word and print publishing.[/QUOTE] this is still a false equivalence, as the speech itself is protected, not the method thereof, and is still a falacy, because you don't know if they intended that or not.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50602421]But that solution doesn't sound easy.[/QUOTE] But banning guns is? You'd rather treat the symptoms than the cause simply because one is easier?

[QUOTE=bdd458;50602426]It's a federal criminal records database and they're doing under the assumption every gun owner is going to be a criminal so they can nab them when they commit a crime. What exactly is this supposed to accomplish???[/QUOTE] where exactly does it say that they assume every gun owner is a criminal?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602431]this is still a false equivalence, as the speech itself is protected, not the method thereof, and is still a falacy, because you don't know if they intended that or not.[/QUOTE] This is not a false equivalence, these are both rights guaranteed by the constitution, mind you, LITERALLY THE FIRST TWO RIGHTS GIVEN. They share almost equal importance.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602431]because you don't know if they intended that or not.[/QUOTE] What they intended is fucking written right in the bill of rights

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602376]You are done here because you have no facts and have not laid any in front of my face, and are leaving because you're too frustrated to actually prove your point.[/QUOTE] No, I'm done here because I'm not going to run around in circles with a high school intro to debate dropout who would struggle to pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the fucking heel