[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;39011824]Why the fuck would you sell any of these to the cops. They don't give you shit for them. I know the AT-4 is useless, but even I'd pay more than $100 for that.[/QUOTE]
The AT4 tube is a trainer rifle, more or less an over glorified glock, I wouldn't doubt it if you could pick one up at a surplus store. The M72 LAW was empty, so it was more or less just a cardboard tube. The majority of these people are giving these rifles away because they inherited them/given them by relatives or friends, and they have no use for it. It's california, so it's just as likely to be hippies "getting rid of my dads evil people killing .22Lr" or "getting rid of grandads evil war relics"
Who's gonna bet someone in the LAPD will 'accidentally' forget to send a few of the nicer pieces off to be melted down?
[QUOTE=McGii;39011063]So much for "a gun buyback won't ever work"[/QUOTE]
If by "work," you mean "take guns from people who had them passed down from family and only knew they didn't like them" and "destroy evidence used in crimes without getting the criminal that used it," then, yes, it worked.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39011927]The second you start declaring "oh you don't NEED that", any credible argument goes out the window for example, in order to support human life you NEED:
1)Food
2)Water
3)Shelter
4)Other human contact
List of things you don't NEED:
1)Television
2)A cellular phone
3)Any form of vehicle that has more than 4 wheels, an engine, and maybe a windscreen
4)ANY form of music, art, or culture
I can keep going with this. Also the whole "BUT CORN, THOSE THINGS YOU DONT NEED ALSO DONT KILL PEOPLE." Fuck this argument, 99.9% of LEGIT gun owners will never discharge their weapon in an attempt to kill someone, and thus, their weapon ISN'T going to kill anyone.
[editline]28th December 2012[/editline]
It doesn't. I'm willing to bet that all of these weapons were legitimately owned; where as illegal weaponry still remains on the street, and still aids in killing people. If you wanted to stop the crime from the get go, you'd improve education, job markets, and get rid of the "sensation" of being in a gang. On top of that you'd add MASSIVE jail times for owning an illegal weapon, and a two strike system, on the second strike you are jailed for life. Furthermore, FUNDING the police (not making them larger, not giving them more power) and letting them get top of the line equipment, would defiantly contribute to lower crime rates.[/QUOTE]
First list: The rest of those aren't designed specifically for killing and "FUCK THIS ARGUMENT" doesn't discount that.
Second List: Remove cultural gun fetish and hugely improve mental health support, drop the prison for life part and you got yourself a great start.
The part about illegal weaponry ect making these buybacks pointless, allow them to be turned in regardless if they are legal or not and increase the reward for turning them in. It's not about removing 100% of guns, its about reducing the total amount.
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39011221]That depends, if you mean a mandatory buyback to get every single gun in the country, then no, it will not work.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone smart has ever actually asked for that.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012281] 99.9% of legal weapons aren't a threat to human life, [/QUOTE]
Source
And aren't you the guy who keeps a rifle and a loaded magazine within easy reach around a child? Pretty much admitting you yourself have a rifle that is an accident waiting to happen.
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012281]ALSO the prison for life thing is perfect, chances are if you do something twice, you're going to continue doing it; you might as well save on the court costs and banish that person to prison.[/QUOTE]
Nice edit.
Americas prison systems are already overcrowded, and chucking more people in who will never leave won't help at all. Neither will a continued focus on punishment over rehabilitation like your plan does.
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;39000108]Both had been fired, where are you seeing that they had un-fired ones?[/QUOTE]
The guy who turned in the launcher didn't buy it already launched dude. How did that post get agrees?
"Holy hell why do people on our streets have military grade rocket launchers?"
as opposed to civilian grade ones
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012401]Maybe if you're an idiot, keeping a magazine, loaded but separate, is a perfectly acceptable thing.
Also aside from the personal attack, source: [url]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp[/url]
1: 300 million guns (note this does not include illegal weapons)
2:
Source for second line: [url]http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml[/url]
66% of 15517 crimes committed with a firearm of some sort
that's 10241.22 crimes committed via a firearm
3:
Logically speaking the percentage of crimes committed via TOTAL firearm owners is: 0.00341374%
THATS NOT EVEN 1/10th.. FUCK THAT'S NOT EVEN 1/100TH.. HOLY FUCK.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if you live alone and don't have children in your house, but a loaded magazine and a rifle that are easy enough to get to "To defend my family" as you put is is not a good thing to have around a [I]child[/I].
Your statistics, while interesting, aren't really relevent
What is relevent is that 60% (9146) of all homicides in America are gun related
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list[/url]
Scroll down on this link:
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url]
The vast majority of murders are with firearms by a huge margin
[quote]
A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the United States are committed with guns.[53] Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used,[53][54][55] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[56] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[57] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[58][59] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[55][60] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[57][60][/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Other_violent_crime[/url]
[quote]
The effectiveness and safety of guns used for personal defense is debated. Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65 thousand times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.[67]
[B]Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[68] This equated to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%)[/B] that occurred in this period.[68] [B]For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[68] [/B]Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well known to the victim.[68] In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender.[68] [B]In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[/B][68] [B]During this same period, 1987 to 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[69] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[68][/B]
[B]McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, who found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot.[70] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77]
McDowall cited methodological issues with the Kleck studies: (1) Kleck used a very small sample size and (2) did not confine the definition of self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[68][/B] Kleck and Gertz said they used an anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey, and did not know the identities of the [B]4,977 interviewed.[/B](Edit here: 5000 in a country of 300 000 000) They said the quality of sampling procedures was well above the level common in national surveys, using a large, nationally representative survey.[78] [B]A study of gun use in the 1990s by Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that criminal use of guns was far more common than self-defense use[/B].[79] According to the Kleck study most successful preventions of victimization were accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.[68][70][79][B] Hemenway considered that the Kleck figure was inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently showed that guns were used many times more often for self-defense in burglaries than there were reported incidents of burglaries of premises whose occupants were awake and armed with firearms.[/B][80] [B]Hemenway concluded that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is probably a gross overestimate, with the true figure one tenth that amount or less.[/B] Alternative explanations could be that many more burglaries occurred than were reported to police, and/or people overreported their use of their guns for self-defense in burglaries.
[B]States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership.[81] Non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.[81][/B]
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;39000171]Here come the self-proclaimed gun experts who have never touched a gun in their life.[/QUOTE]
Why does some idiot always say something like this in every thread? Take pretty much every sex-related thread ever, you get "ITT: Virgins talking about sex".
Stop posting this shit you tryhards, not everyone on FP is an armchair general or a no-life neckbeard. I mean it would be great if people owned up to what level of experience they have with something when talking about it, but fuck... generalizations like this are dumb and you should feel bad for making them.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012573]You didn't even bother reading the sources.. why.. oh well. ALSO your sources don't help your cause, while "60% of homocides are comitted via firearm) thats only 9k, of 300 million.. my point still stands, and waits to be challenged.
[editline]28th December 2012[/editline]
Also, considering that if you keep a magazine out of a child's reach, a gun is nothing more than a hunk of metal, lubricants, and springs.[/QUOTE]
Is this where I pull one of those "I hope no one calls me a dumbass oh god please" lines from when I wanted to take a break in the last thread?
[QUOTE=McGii;39012602]Is this where I pull one of those "I hope no one calls me a dumbass oh god please" lines from when I wanted to take a break in the last thread?[/QUOTE]
how about you take a moment to stop being so over zealous
properly stored equipment is safer than not. most child related gun accidents are from improperly secured weapons. if it's not loaded and chambered and a their kept in a safe or a place out of the reach of the kid(all shit on your end that you're just wildly assuming) then it's not a threat.
you also should start arguing peoples points and stop skipping over them. you pretty much got a ban for that last time.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012546]The vast majority of murders are with firearms by a huge margin
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Other_violent_crime[/URL][/QUOTE]
Was just doing some reading on your source, found these tidbits:
[QUOTE]Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[57] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[58][59] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[55][60] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[57][60][/QUOTE]
You're kind of disproving your own point here.
[QUOTE]According to the Kleck study most successful preventions of victimization were accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.[68][70][79][/QUOTE]
Though the Kleck study should have been done better, the McDowall study you use as evidence doesn't count having a gun but not firing it as a self-defense scenario, which I imagine is the most common self-defense situation. Also about your 5000 people in a country of 300 million edit: a sample size of 2000-5000 is generally considered plenty by statisticians. Just thought you would want to know.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39012566]Why does some idiot always say something like this in every thread? Take pretty much every sex-related thread ever, you get "ITT: Virgins talking about sex".
Stop posting this shit you tryhards, not everyone on FP is an armchair general or a no-life neckbeard. I mean it would be great if people owned up to what level of experience they have with something when talking about it, but fuck... generalizations like this are dumb and you should feel bad for making them.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why people assume facepunch is a hivemind.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39012674]I don't know why people assume facepunch is a hivemind.[/QUOTE]
it happens in damn near every thread and every time i read a post like that i'm tempted to make a scathing retort about how there's no reasonable way to say FP has any sort of confirmed opinions about anything
literally every fucking thread is a mess of opinions, since when did we hivemind
[QUOTE=McGii;39012546]Maybe if you live alone and don't have children in your house, but a loaded magazine and a rifle that are easy enough to get to "To defend my family" as you put is is not a good thing to have around a [I]child[/I].
Your statistics, while interesting, aren't really relevent
What is relevent is that 60% (9146) of all homicides in America are gun related
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list[/url]
Scroll down on this link:
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url]
The vast majority of murders are with firearms by a huge margin
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Other_violent_crime[/url][/QUOTE]
your relevent [sic] statistics, when compared to statistics from countries like UK with similar murder rates and strict gun control, just say that homicide is independent of gun ownership
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39012687]it happens in damn near every thread and every time i read a post like that i'm tempted to make a scathing retort about how there's no reasonable way to say FP has any sort of confirmed opinions about anything
literally every fucking thread is a mess of opinions, since when did we hivemind[/QUOTE]
"Wow facepunch, last thread you said guns were good, make your mind up, Jeez!"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012627]ALRIGHT: lets use your stats.
Even then, with that high of a rate, AGAIN: assuming that all crime is comitted via registered firearm (300 million) it's 0.03048666666666667% of total guns in the united states, this is assuming that every crime is committed via a different weapon, so i ask again.. where's the argument? that's still 99.97.[/QUOTE]
I am arguing that your statistic is pointless when your gun murders and crime account for over half your total crime, there there are more homicides where there are more guns, and the use of a gun in self defense only occurs in 2 in 1000 incidents. The statistic show that despite a a high number of guns not being used in a crime, more guns = more crimes and death.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012703]I am arguing that your statistic is pointless when your gun murders and crime account for over half your total crime, there there are more homicides where there are more guns, and the use of a gun in self defense only occurs in 2 in 1000 incidents. The statistic show that despite a a high number of guns not being used in a crime, more guns = more crimes and death.[/QUOTE]
You're overlooking the fact that if guns weren't readily available, then people would use blades or blunt objects. If someone wants someone dead bad enough to actually try and kill them with a firearm, whats stopping them from using a knife or Louisville slugger?
[QUOTE=McGii;39012703]I am arguing that your statistic is pointless when your gun murders and crime account for over half your total crime, there there are more homicides where there are more guns, and the use of a gun in self defense only occurs in 2 in 1000 incidents. The statistic show that despite a a high number of guns not being used in a crime, more guns = more crimes and death.[/QUOTE]
nothing, and I mean nothing, is saying these crimes won't be committed in a different manner without guns
also
this has nothing to do with how many guns are in the country.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39012656]how about you take a moment to stop being so over zealous
properly stored equipment is safer than not. most child related gun accidents are from improperly secured weapons. if it's not loaded and chambered and a their kept in a safe or a place out of the reach of the kid(all shit on your end that you're just wildly assuming) then it's not a threat.
you also should start arguing peoples points and stop skipping over them. you pretty much got a ban for that last time.[/QUOTE]
I got a ban for telling someone who did nothing but go "ahahaha look at this idiot" to fuck off and stop posting
And really HA, you cannot talk
[t]http://i.imgur.com/iC0i2.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39012687]it happens in damn near every thread and every time i read a post like that i'm tempted to make a scathing retort about how there's no reasonable way to say FP has any sort of confirmed opinions about anything
literally every fucking thread is a mess of opinions, since when did we hivemind[/QUOTE]
While FP is too diverse and large to hive mind, it can be an echo chamber at times.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012546]Your statistics, while interesting, aren't really relevent[/QUOTE]
You're the one who asked for a source.
Then when you were provided with one, you moved the goalposts. Lemming logic 101.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012546]What is relevent is that 60% (9146) of all homicides in America are gun related
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list[/URL][/url][/QUOTE]
I'll go as far as saying that I can definitely believe that eliminating firearms reduces homicide is possible, and may also reduce the injuries/personal damage of violent crime, but that statistic you are parading around on a stick is worthless without additional context.
[quote]States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership.[81] Non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.[81][/quote]
provides some good context, but it's not enough to explicitly imply causation. More accounting for control variables on that topic would be nice. Even giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is true, it's still failing to bring total crime rates into context. It's been said time and time again. Any argument about this must attempt to analyze and account for as many variabels as possible.
Failing to do so makes it extremely easy to riddle any studies with holes when attempting to apply their results to the overall picture.
I'm referring to people in general, and not you specifically, but it continues to baffle me why people insist on cherry picking data and extrapolating it to ludicrous scenarios that the data set does not cover, and cannot hope to cover without enormous amounts of adjustments for context.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012703]I am arguing that your statistic is pointless when your gun murders and crime account for over half your total crime, there there are more homicides where there are more guns, and the use of a gun in self defense only occurs in 2 in 1000 incidents. The statistic show that despite a a high number of guns not being used in a crime, more guns = more crimes and death.[/QUOTE]
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/I3Fkz.jpg[/thumb]
ban these too
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39012716]You're overlooking the fact that if guns weren't readily available, then people would use blades or blunt objects. If someone wants someone dead bad enough to actually try and kill them with a firearm, whats stopping them from using a knife or Louisville slugger?[/QUOTE]
Nothing, however it reduces the fatalities severely as I already posted about.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012764]I got a ban for telling someone who did nothing but go "ahahaha look at this idiot" to fuck off and stop posting
And really HA, you cannot talk
[t]http://i.imgur.com/iC0i2.jpg[/t]
While FP is too diverse and large to hive mind, it can be an echo chamber at times.[/QUOTE]
why can't I talk? you never refuted shit there, you made the point that we should use circular and grid targets. Guess what, most civilians do. Most marksmen do. So what fucking point did you ever have. also, he had pointed out flaws in your argument long before he laughed at you, you just ignored him the whole fucking time.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012764]I got a ban for telling someone who did nothing but go "ahahaha look at this idiot" to fuck off and stop posting
And really HA, you cannot talk
[t]http://i.imgur.com/iC0i2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
How is this picture evidence of a personal attack? OK it's delivered in a pretty condescending tone, but it is a refutation of your point.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012714]I'm arguing that you don't know what you're talking about, and that 99.97% of all legal firearms aren't going to be used in a crime in the first place. Statistically your argument is irrelevant and wrong.[/QUOTE]
And people accuse me of not making a counterpoint or ignoring arguments. More guns = more crimes and more deaths and more crimes resulting in death as I have shown
[QUOTE=McGii;39012775]Nothing, however it reduces the fatalities severely as I already posted about.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see citation on that. I'd wager a stab wound from your average pocket knife is more fatal than a 9mm wound. Unlike in movies and call of duty, people typically don't die from a single shot.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012789]And people accuse me of not making a counterpoint or ignoring arguments. More guns = more crimes and more deaths and more crimes resulting in death as I have shown[/QUOTE]
you're wrong and there's nothing else to it. your head is so far up your ass you can't even see how wrong you are
[QUOTE=McGii;39012789]And people accuse me of not making a counterpoint or ignoring arguments. More guns = more crimes and more deaths and more crimes resulting in death as I have shown[/QUOTE]
no it doesn't because there's no way to say that some of those crimes would have still been committed
this also doesn't say anything remotely damning about civilian fire arms and legally owned weapons.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39012787]How is this picture evidence of a personal attack? OK it's delivered in a pretty condescending tone, but it is a refutation of your point.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
you also should start arguing peoples points and stop skipping over them. you pretty much got a ban for that last time.[/quote]
I ask whats wrong with using a round or grid target, he quotes that and asks the same thing in the condescending tone he uses that destroys all possibility of an argument not turning into a petty bitch fest.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
