Gun retailers stop selling guns and ammo to police - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39707949]But the other half thinks it is[/quote] Not half, more like a tiny number. Remember that the vast majority of people do not actually own a "assault weapon". [quote]Well that's swell! lets decide how many people this would affect in a negative way based solely on the 30% of people who actually come to polls![/quote] Well this is how democracy already works. [quote]That's a shame.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I wonder why the majority of people would think that.

[QUOTE=scout1;39707869]Yeah I mean how do you make those number predictions and stuffs man, like statistics and economics let's just ignore those. Analytical modeling? Pfft, get the fuck outta here with your accurate predictions that all major policies are based on. so in a nutshell, you're wrong simply because I say you are[/QUOTE] except that most of these statistics point against gun control Guns Vs Violent crime: no correlation Half of America doesn't support the AWB Gun registration being used to solve/prevent crimes in Canada: not really Economic effects of gun control? Gun makers start to lose revenue thats what; I don't even know why you brought up economics And any predictions about Gun Control saving everyone from violent crime are far less than accurate Intellectual Guerilla Scout1 does it again!

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39707989]Economic effects of gun control? Gun makers start to lose revenue thats what; I don't even know why you brought up economics[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39707987]Not half, more like a tiny number. [/QUOTE] False. I shouldn't even have to explain this. [quote]Remember that the vast majority of people do not actually own a "assault weapon". [/quote] "assault weapons" are just a dumb made up classification by politicians so that they could make semiautomatic rifles and other guns sound like assault rifles by associating them with the word "assault" I can't tell you how many people I've met who think we're allowed to buy automatic weapons off the shelves and that an automatic weapon was used at Newtown the term "assault weapon" is a fearmongering tactic and its validity is questionable at its very best [quote]Well this is how democracy already works. [/quote] That's also a shame [quote]Yeah, I wonder why the majority of people would think that. [/quote] Because these barely "majority" people are mostly misinformed and buy into the propoganda of the term "assault weapon" [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39707997][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window[/url][/QUOTE] even so point still stands

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39707987]Not half, more like a tiny number. Remember that the vast majority of people do not actually own a "assault weapon". [/QUOTE] Sources on these? Pretty much everyone I know that is a firearms owner owns something that is classified as an "assault weapon" under the former and possibly upcoming AWB.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39708022]False. I shouldn't even have to explain this.[/quote] If you can show me something where it says that half of the population of the USA owns a firearm that would become illegal under the new law, I would be happy to change my stance. [quote]"assault weapons" are just a dumb made up classification by politicians so that they could make semiautomatic rifles and other guns sound like assault rifles by associating them with the word "assault"[/quote] Off on a tangent there buddy, you didn't actually address my point at all (which is that most people don't even own an assault weapon). [quote]I can't tell you how many people I've met who think we're allowed to buy automatic weapons off the shelves and that an automatic weapon was used at Newtown the term "assault weapon" is a fearmongering tactic and its validity is questionable at its very best[/quote] Your dingdong there actually supports my argument. If people are so clueless about "assault weapons" (note the scare quotes) then I don't think they would be likely to own one. [quote]That's also a shame[/quote] Well there's always another silly political idea. [quote]Because these barely "majority" people are mostly misinformed and buy into the propoganda of the term "assault weapon"[/QUOTE] I don't think the over 6 billion people who live outside the USA even care or know what a "assault weapon" is. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;39708045]Sources on these? Pretty much everyone I know that is a firearms owner owns something that is classified as an "assault weapon" under the former and possibly upcoming AWB.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx[/url] [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/euasirae5k68v5xwyqxerg.gif[/img] 2/3 of the American population (personally) don't own firearms. I would safely say that the majority of people don't own "assault weapons". [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] Despite your stance, there are some disturbing problems that actually need addressing. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2937134/[/url] [quote]Using a scripted telephone interview, we screened a sample of licensed retailers in California to assess their willingness to participate in the surrogate or “straw” purchase of a handgun; such purchases are illegal under federal law. Of 149 retailers who provided a response, 30 (20.1%) agreed to participate.[/quote] I.e 20% of legal and licensed retailers agree to conduct a sale which was illegal under federal law.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39708069]If you can show me something where it says that half of the population of the USA owns a firearm that would become illegal under the new law, I would be happy to change my stance. Off on a tangent there buddy, you didn't actually address my point at all (which is that most people don't even own an assault weapon). Your dingdong there actually supports my argument. If people are so clueless about "assault weapons" (note the scare quotes) then I don't think they would be likely to own one. Well there's always another silly political idea. I don't think the over 6 billion people who live outside the USA even care or know what a "assault weapon" is. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx[/url] [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/euasirae5k68v5xwyqxerg.gif[/img] 2/3 of the American population (personally) don't own firearms. I would safely say that the majority of people don't own "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean that they can't oppose an assault weapons ban? I know plenty of colleagues who don't have guns in their household and they oppose gun control. You don't have to own it to advocate for it. people not knowing that the difference between an assault weapon and a non assault weapon are purely cosmetic actually reinforces MY point, thank you. I apologize but I misinterpreted that your posts were saying that most people dont oppose gun control. But no, you were talking about the portion of people who actually own guns and somehow those were the only people allowed to oppose gun control.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39708069] 2/3 of the American population (personally) don't own firearms. I would safely say that the majority of people don't own "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] A better number to look at is the "No gun in household", which is 51%, thus 49% of people have a firearm in their household even if they dont PERSONALLY own one. Generally if a person buys firearms, his spouse and children probably wont, since they would all just use the firearms that the one person bought. If you have firearms in your household, you're probably not heavily in favor of gun control. And if you have a firearm in your household, gun control is going to impact you weather you own the gun or not. So its really not fair to say that guns/assault weapons are irrelevant to 2/3s of the population.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39708154]Doesn't mean that they can't oppose an assault weapons ban? I know plenty of colleagues who don't have guns in their household and they oppose gun control. You don't have to own it to advocate for it. people not knowing that the difference between an assault weapon and a non assault weapon are purely cosmetic actually reinforces MY point, thank you. I apologize but I misinterpreted that your posts were saying that most people dont oppose gun control. But no, you were talking about the portion of people who actually own guns and somehow those were the only people allowed to oppose gun control.[/QUOTE] It's pretty obvious that people who don't use firearms are less likely to be involved in gun politics. I think gun culture is on a decline at the moment. Less people own guns, although much more own them. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/[/url] [quote]The actual number of guns reported in our survey varied depending on how the question was asked and who answered the question. Individual firearm owners (n=702) reported owning an average of 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 7.9, median 3) working firearms. On further examination, it seemed that individuals who owned 4 firearms (with an average of 12 firearms per person) were greatly affecting the mean. When outliers representing the top 3% of gun owners (those owning >25 guns) were removed, the average number of working firearms per owner was 5.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 5.4). On the basis of estimates of 26% of adults in the US owning at least one firearm, we estimated that 57 million adults owned 283 million firearms (95% CI 260 to 305 million).[/quote] I.e, it's becoming more concentrated within a shrinking group of people. Now I may be extrapolating here, but when groups begin to shrink and take their common binding factor more seriously, that generally starts to lead to issues. [quote]Firearms are most likely to be owned by white men who live in a rural areas, those who are middle‐aged or older, with a middle to higher income, who grew up with guns in the home and who live in the southern or mid‐western regions of the country.[/quote] I am not surprised. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;39708160]A better number to look at is the "No gun in household", which is 51%, thus 49% of people have a firearm in their household even if they dont PERSONALLY own one. Generally if a person buys firearms, his spouse and children probably wont, since they would all just use the firearms that the one person bought. If you have firearms in your household, you're probably not heavily in favor of gun control. And if you have a firearm in your household, gun control is going to impact you weather you own the gun or not. So its really not fair to say that guns/assault weapons are irrelevant to 2/3s of the population.[/QUOTE] Except even then, this only revises the figure from 66 to 51%. Plus not all gun owners own "assault weapons".

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39708160] If you have firearms in your household, you're probably not heavily in favor of gun control. [/QUOTE] Depends on what exactly "heavily in favor" and "gun control" are being defined as. Statistically most gun owners, and even most NRA members, are for more stringent background checks, which is technically gun control. Realistically everyone is for gun control, it's just a matter of where you end the scale at.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39706747]The reason we aren't getting anywhere is because there isn't conclusive evidence to completely demolish the other sides argument yet on gun control.[/QUOTE] I found an article which might explain some of the reasons why: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39708258]I found an article which might explain some of the reasons why: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url][/QUOTE] The NRA is a really shitty organization and I have no idea why we've let them become so intwined into politics

[QUOTE=scout1;39708267]The NRA is a really shitty organization and I have no idea why we've let them become so intwined into politics[/QUOTE] It's not like the prominent anti-gun organizations are much better. See: Brady Campaign.

[QUOTE=scout1;39708267]The NRA is a really shitty organization and I have no idea why we've let them become so intwined into politics[/QUOTE] Suppression of research speaks volumes about the NRA if it is to blame. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;39708273]It's not like the prominent anti-gun organizations are much better. See: Brady Campaign.[/QUOTE] The reasons are probably because researchers aren't being allowed to actually figure out which of the sides is the least wrong.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39708206]Depends on what exactly "heavily in favor" and "gun control" are being defined as. Statistically most gun owners, and even most NRA members, are for more stringent background checks, which is technically gun control. Realistically everyone is for gun control, it's just a matter of where you end the scale at.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, should specify that you probably wouldn't be in favor of [I]strict[/I] gun control

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39708280]The reasons are probably because researchers aren't being allowed to actually figure out which of the sides is the least wrong.[/QUOTE] Well, there are a lot of factors. The one that speaks to me most personally is the emotional nature of the subject. Too often I see the facts discarded, by both sides, in favor of some emotionally charged bullshit. Sorry, people, stats are stats, and we really don't have a lot.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39708273]It's not like the prominent anti-gun organizations are much better. See: Brady Campaign.[/QUOTE] The difference in political power and overall damage to society between the two organizations isn't even comparable though. Yeah the Brady Campaign definitely lies and misconstrues facts to sell their agenda, but when the NRA does that it actually puts real weapons on the street and gives corporations more political power. It's the same thing as saying that MSNBC is a terrible news organization and so is Fox so they are the same. They both aren't very good at what they do but one is clearly more detrimental and far-reaching than the other.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39708414]The difference in political power and overall damage to society between the two organizations isn't even comparable though. Yeah the Brady Campaign definitely lies and misconstrues facts to sell their agenda, but when the NRA does that it actually puts real weapons on the street and gives corporations more political power. It's the same thing as saying that MSNBC is a terrible news organization and so is Fox so they are the same. They both aren't very good at what they do but one is clearly more detrimental and far-reaching than the other.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah. But then it goes back to why the hell is this debate so emotionally charged? It's gross. Neither side has exactly the facts to back their arguments up (and that's why these threads degrade into shitty little ad-hominem fights after 2 pages.)