Mass Shooting Season 2014 still going strong as four+ are wounded at Seattle Pacific University
474 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bdd458;45021839]source?[/QUOTE]
[quote]"But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago."[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912[/url]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021854]Yeah, they don't keep ammunition but if they wanted to kill someone they could just go out and buy/make it
Your point is moot[/QUOTE]
They don't keep ammo given by the government anymore. They can still buy various forms of ammunition.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021850][url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/[/url]
[url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/[/url]
[url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/22/aje.kwt197.abstract[/url]
there are thirty more academic medical journals ready to be read if you just type it into google.[/QUOTE]
Not the point, you can't blame guns for someone willfully taking their own life
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021854]Yeah, they don't keep ammunition but if they wanted to kill someone they could just go out and buy/make it
Your point is moot[/QUOTE]
but they don't?
the vast majority suicide and crimes of passion are not pre-planned.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021859][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912[/url][/QUOTE]
as I stated, that's ammunition given by the fucking government. They can still go buy whatever ammunition they feel they need.
[QUOTE=bdd458;45021860]They don't keep ammo given by the government anymore. They can still buy various forms of ammunition.[/QUOTE]
but they don't have ammunition in the home
so no
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;45021867]as I stated, that's ammunition given by the fucking government. They can still go buy whatever ammunition they feel they need.[/QUOTE]
but they don't
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021864]but they don't?
the vast majority suicide and crimes of passion are not pre-planned.[/QUOTE]
So? I think the vast majority of a lot of crimes aren't pre planned
Like mugging? Is the 5 minutes taken by the mugger to consider their mark considered planning?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45021861]Or it could be the rampant gang activity in the cities. I guarantee you that if you somehow magically got rid of the gangs, our firearm crime would PLUMMET. And how to we "magically get rid of the gangs", well.. we've been suggesting that the entire thread.[/QUOTE]
And in order for that to happen, we would need to decrease poverty, and to decrease drug usage (of drugs such as Crack Cocaine, which only help feed the cycle of poverty and gangs).
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021873]but they don't have ammunition in the home
so no
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
but they don't[/QUOTE]
So you're using the anecdote of one militia member who does not have any ammunition on hand as the basis for your entire argument?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021873]but they don't have ammunition in the home
so no
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
but they don't[/QUOTE]
So? The potential is still there. They still CAN make or buy ammunition. Your point is still moot.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021875]So? I think the vast majority of a lot of crimes aren't pre planned
Like mugging? Is the 5 minutes taken by the mugger to consider their mark considered planning?[/QUOTE]
What do you know about mugging? Back this up with a academic study at least and I will consider it.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;45021888]So you're using the anecdote of one militia member who does not have any ammunition on hand as the basis for your entire argument?[/QUOTE]
did you even read the fucking source lmao
"[B]the majority[/B] don't have ammunition at home"
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021890]What do you know about mugging? Back this up with a academic study at least and I will consider it.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
did you even read the fucking source lmao[/QUOTE]
No, because it was irrelevant. I'm not saying that your data is false, I'm questioning how people not keeping ammunition on them removes this "access to homicide tools" factor that you've basically married at this point.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;45021895][url]http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/[/url][/QUOTE]
that isn't a primary source
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021899]No, because it was irrelevant. I'm not saying that your data is false, I'm questioning how people not keeping ammunition on them removes this "access to homicide tools" factor that you've basically married at this point.[/QUOTE]
because you don't use guns to murder people unless you put bullets through them?
ps is 'irrelevant' your code word for 'doesn't exist oops'
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021900]because you don't use guns to murder people unless you put bullets through them?
ps is 'irrelevant' your code word for 'doesn't exist oops'[/QUOTE]
No? What the heck are you talking about.
As for guns, yeah, you don't, but they can MAKE OR BUY bullets to do this with, yet they don't. Your argument is basically ignoring the main point of what we say and extrapolating a meaning from them that isn't there.
Or in your terms, "irrelevant"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45021908]No but this is: [url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/url]
It's 42ish pages long. Enjoy your read. It's fairly good.[/QUOTE]
okay so it says the contrary to several other academic studies?
the weight of scientific discourse still discredits it on volume alone. You can easier dig up the odd study proving climate change to be false too.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021900]that isn't a primary source
[/QUOTE]
It is a meta-analysis. They are never primary sources, but are generally more trustworthy than an individual study because they view the picture as a whole, rather than a singular study. They take the data gathered from a huge number of sources and then collectively view them to find trends or common factors. They are, by definition, secondary at best. Contrary to popular belief, not being a primary source is of little relevance in this regard.
[url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/url]
EDIT: Oh, unless you are referencing that he didn't directly link the review. Though it makes more sense to link an article which summarizes the review and then links directly the review when discussing things on a forum.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45021942]To be completely fair you can't just "make bullets". You'd have to have access to the powder, the primer, the brass, a forge to melt the lead, and even then you wouldn't be able to jacket the round, which leads to fouling problems. Which would be further exacerbated if you were using homemade smokeless powder.
And the swiss can't just buy bullets. They have to have a license to purchase them, just like they have to have a license to keep their militia weapon after service.[/QUOTE]
Well, you can make bullets really easily. Making cartridges is a little (lot) more difficult.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021890]What do you know about mugging? Back this up with a academic study at least and I will consider it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, because scholars are going to do a comprehensive survey of jailed muggers inquiring how much they planned to wait for an unlucky guy to pass their alley before threatening him with a knife and running off with his cash
[QUOTE=bdd458;45021746]Or you know, a stigma relating to mental health issues, sometimes lax police work, high disparity in wealth, high 'extreme' poverty rates, and a quickly shrinking middle class.
but right, the issue has to be the guns.[/QUOTE]
mind posting those statistics
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021953]Yes, because scholars are going to do a comprehensive survey of jailed muggers inquiring how much they planned to wait for an unlucky guy to pass their alley before threatening him with a knife and running off with his cash[/QUOTE]
so you have zero data on this claim?
then why make it?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021962]so you have zero data on this claim?
then why make it?[/QUOTE]
Because not everything is a matter of numbers and trends and different sized bars and cluttered scatter plots, believe it or not
[QUOTE=GunFox;45021927]It is a meta-analysis. They are never primary sources, but are generally more trustworthy than an individual study because they view the picture as a whole, rather than a singular study. They take the data gathered from a huge number of sources and then collectively view them to find trends or common factors. They are, by definition, secondary at best. Contrary to popular belief, not being a primary source is of little relevance in this regard.
[url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/url]
EDIT: Oh, unless you are referencing that he didn't directly link the review. Though it makes more sense to link an article which summarizes the review and then links directly the review when discussing things on a forum.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the ACRU is a credible source oops
[quote]The ACRU is committed to ensuring that those who believe in traditional moral values, such as the Boy Scouts of America, remain free to hold, express, teach and practice those beliefs.[/quote]
the website is just choked full of anti-abortion, fundamental christian and gender bullshit.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021981]Because not everything is a matter of numbers and trends and different sized bars and cluttered scatter plots, believe it or not[/QUOTE]
sorry for believing in empirical evidence
and i'm also sorry you can't provide anything for your wild claims
figures
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45021958]mind posting those statistics[/QUOTE]
These cover the economy during the Clinton years (general poverty declined, while extreme poverty increased), and that continued to today.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-clinton-economy-in-charts/[/url]
Wealth inequality in the United States: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States[/url]
[url]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-wealth-gap-is-growing-too/[/url]
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021993]
the website is just choked full of anti-abortion, fundamental christian and gender bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Although I'm Pro-Abortion, and pro-gender equality, and not christian in the slightest, but because what they value is not entirely liberal, you can't trust it? lmao. I'm not saying trust Fox News or MSNBC here, but come on.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021993]I don't think the ACRU is a credible source oops
the website is just choked full of anti-abortion, fundamental christian and gender bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
So even though the article is based on a credible source, you're going to ignore it because you don't like their views on completely irrelevant topics?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45022037]So even though the article is based on a credible source, you're going to ignore it because you don't like their views on completely irrelevant topics?[/QUOTE]
Nah, he is right, that is a plenty reason valid not to take them as a credible source. Another, more credible, site which provided a summary or the abstract itself would have been a better choice.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021700]violent crime is lower in the US than most European countries.
Yet homicide is incredibly high, four times the UK, and six times of germany.
The only difference is the access to homicide tools.[/QUOTE]
interestingly, alcohol plays a huge role:
[url]http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/resources/digtal_update_Webster_Vernick.pdf[/url]
page 14
[QUOTE]For example, approximately 37% of persons incarcerated for violent crimes are intoxicated when those crimes are committed, by their own report. About one third of hom i cide and suicide victims test positive for alcohol, and at least 60% of those meet legal criteria for intoxication. Multiple large-scale surveys have shown substantial increases in risk for future violence related to a prior history of alcohol abuse or dependence.8,9 Studies of DUI offenders have found a very high prevalence of alcohol dependence and increased rates of criminal activity.[/QUOTE]
restrictions regarding access to firearms relative to DUI infractions and alcohol abuse could substantially reduce gun-related deaths, according to the paper.
some other food for thought:
[url]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294[/url]
[QUOTE]The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).[/QUOTE]
the study that the above is referring to:
[url]http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021993]I don't think the ACRU is a credible source oops
the website is just choked full of anti-abortion, fundamental christian and gender bullshit.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
sorry for believing in empirical evidence
and i'm also sorry you can't provide anything for your wild claims
figures[/QUOTE]
It contained an actual Harvard study, something you obviously don't understand. You just keep denying anything thrown at you because you don't care to know the truth.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;45022219]It contained an actual Harvard study, something you obviously don't understand. You just keep denying anything thrown at you because you don't care to know the truth.[/QUOTE]
just fyi it's not a harvard study.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021993]I don't think the ACRU is a credible source oops
the website is just choked full of anti-abortion, fundamental christian and gender bullshit.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
sorry for believing in empirical evidence
and i'm also sorry you can't provide anything for your wild claims
figures[/QUOTE]
Do you just sit at the SH forums header masturbating until a shooting story comes up, just to go in and complain about Americans and firearms?
Fucking christ, son. Get a hobby
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.