Students’ gun protest turns violent in Stockton, California and leads to arrests - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164574]Saying that if the shooter had to stop and reload more often/had less bullets is not unreasonable speculation. The idk refers to the fact that it's just a starting point, an idea to be looked at more closely[/QUOTE] Magazine capacity only makes a difference in effectiveness when your targets are shooting back at you. A shooter walking around a crowded building shooting anyone they see could do that with a single shot break-action 12 gauge and a pocket full of shells, it would have no bearing at all on the effectiveness of the spree unless someone nearby pulled out a gun to stop them, and in that case, even if they had a [I]standard capacity[/I] magazine in an AR-15, they'd still be at a severe disadvantage due to the element of surprise. An inexperienced shooter rampaging with an AR-15 being ambushed by a CHL holder who had to demonstrate competence well beyond what soldiers and cops are required to qualify with in order to get his license is at an extreme disadvantage. Magazine capacity is great for soldiers because when you're under fire, the one or two seconds it takes to reload are a window that can cost you your life, so you want to have as few of those windows as possible. It's great for hobby shooters because reloading is boring and shooting more is fun. For a murderer shooting defenseless, cornered people? It makes no difference. I wish people would stop getting so hung up on magazine capacity. [editline]28th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;53165533]Still waiting for an actual response BTW. Judging by the ratings, there should be more than enough people willing to provide one.[/QUOTE] Are you asking for examples of first world countries with high gun ownership rates with no related gun violence issues? I can offer several, but you could have looked that up yourself. Czech Republic and Switzerland come to mind immediately - and don't try to deflect those examples with "but those countries have gun control." The overwhelming majority of gun crime in the US is committed with stolen firearms. Controls on purchasing guns legally has no impact on crime committed with stolen guns. In either example country you could easily steal a gun and commit a crime with it, but it barely happens, since neither of those countries are facing the social issues that motivate people to crime on a wide scale.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166558]Are you asking for examples of first world countries with high gun ownership rates with no related gun violence issues? I can offer several, but you could have looked that up yourself. Czech Republic and Switzerland come to mind immediately - and don't try to deflect those examples with "but those countries have gun control." The overwhelming majority of gun crime in the US is committed with stolen firearms. Controls on purchasing guns legally has no impact on crime committed with stolen guns. In either example country you could easily steal a gun and commit a crime with it, but it barely happens, since neither of those countries are facing the social issues that motivate people to crime on a wide scale.[/QUOTE] They're respectively 7 and 4 times less saturated with firearms than the US, according to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country]the ranking I posted last page.[/url] And they're behind France and other countries with strict gun control such as Germany. Not sure what source you're basing yourself on regarding those countries having high gun ownership rates.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166606]They're respectively 7 and 4 times less saturated with firearms than the US, according to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country]the ranking I posted last page.[/url] And they're behind France and other countries with strict gun control such as Germany. Not sure what source you're basing yourself on regarding those countries having high gun ownership rates.[/QUOTE] The Czech Republic has a very warm view of firearms and only has so few due to Soviet-era sanctions having prevented proliferation - sanctions which are now gone, and their gun ownership rate is climbing fast especially by European standards. But fine, let's look at Serbia, then, which is the next highest after America at 58.21 guns per 100,000, a little under half. Their gun murder rate is 0.61 per 100,000, which favorably compares to the United States' 3.49. A lot of the weapons in Serbia are apparently left over full autos from the various wars it's faced. Yet, again, there is no out of control gun crime problem there. Why's that? Serbia is a poorer country than the US by all accounts. But here's the thing - gun crime is not committed in equal measure across all of the US. The hot spots are very, very poor areas - poorer than you can imagine. There is no reliable correlation between firearms ownership rates and gun crime. There is a binary relationship: if guns exist in your country, it is possible for someone to be murdered with one, yes. But beyond that? The number in circulation can not be demonstrated to have any effect. What can be firmly linked to crime rates is extreme poverty and other sources of social unrest.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166616]The Czech Republic has a very warm view of firearms and only has so few due to Soviet-era sanctions having prevented proliferation - sanctions which are now gone, and their gun ownership rate is climbing fast especially by European standards. But fine, let's look at Serbia, then, which is the next highest after America at 58.21 guns per 100,000, a little under half. Their gun murder rate is 0.61 per 100,000, which favorably compares to the United States' 3.49. A lot of the weapons in Serbia are apparently left over full autos from the various wars it's faced. Yet, again, there is no out of control gun crime problem there. Why's that? Serbia is a poorer country than the US by all accounts. But here's the thing - gun crime is not committed in equal measure across all of the US. The hot spots are very, very poor areas - poorer than you can imagine. There is no reliable correlation between firearms ownership rates and gun crime. There is a binary relationship: if guns exist in your country, it is possible for someone to be murdered with one, yes. But beyond that? The number in circulation can not be demonstrated to have any effect. What can be firmly linked to crime rates is extreme poverty and other sources of social unrest.[/QUOTE] I'd like to see what you base the poverty correlations on exactly considering your own example shows an inverse correlation, which according to gun supporters in this thread equates to proof of an absence of influence. I also don't know why you guys keep mentioning murder rates when the subject of this thread is mass shootings. Something which evidently works differently, school shootings in particular.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166627]I'd like to see what you base the poverty correlations on exactly considering your own example shows an inverse correlation, which according to gun supporters in this thread equates to proof of an absence of influence. I also don't know why you guys keep mentioning murder rates when the subject of this thread is mass shootings. Something which evidently works differently, school shootings in particular.[/QUOTE] Those hot spots are the reason our crime rates appear so high. In 2015, there were 1,451 violent crimes in Flint, Michigan - a city of just 98,000 people and one of the most hopelessly run-down cities in the country - 47 of which were murders. That is a murder rate of nearly 50 per 100,000. We have enough poverty hotspots like this scattered across the country to have a MAJOR impact on national rates. It'd be like taking a weight average of a class of 30 students where one student weighs 1,000 pounds. Obviously that's going to grossly misrepresent the rest of the class. The mass shooting rate is so small as to be utterly negligible in statistics. I won't discuss it because "mass shooting" itself is as useful a term as "assault weapon". When you think of a mass shooting, you think of someone with a gun shooting up a bunch of innocent people, but that's not what the statistic is counting at all. The "mass shooting" stat point includes any shooting involving 3 or more people. It does not discriminate based on whether or not those people were killed or even injured or whether they were also participating in a crime. As a result, gang skirmishes in cities like Flint are largely responsible for inflating that statistic, which is very small any way you slice it, but practically microscopic if you are only looking at actual killing sprees of defenseless people. I have said this time and time again, at least once to you specifically, so I hope you just forgot and aren't trying to continue to push a narrative which is blatantly based on manipulative terms and bent statistics.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166629]Those hot spots are the reason our crime rates appear so high. In 2015, there were 1,451 violent crimes in Flint, Michigan - a city of just 98,000 people. We have enough poverty hotspots like this scattered across the country to have a MAJOR impact on national rates. It'd be like taking a weight average of a class of 30 students where one student weighs 1,000 pounds. Obviously that's going to grossly misrepresent the rest of the class.[/QUOTE] So, what exactly is the correlation between poverty and murder rates? We've seen that Serbia is a direct counter-example. If counter-examples are enough for you to dismiss a cause, then you should be able to show an actual correlation for your hypothesis, otherwise it isn't any more valid than mine.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166635]So, what exactly is the correlation between poverty and murder rates? We've seen that Serbia is a direct counter-example. If counter-examples are enough for you to dismiss a cause, then you should be able to show an actual correlation for your hypothesis, otherwise it isn't any more valid than mine.[/QUOTE] How is Serbia a counter example? Serbia isn't facing extreme poverty and social unrest like our poverty hot spots, which is exactly WHY it's a good example of what I'm putting across. Are you denying that Serbia has high gun ownership and low gun crime? [editline]28th February 2018[/editline] [img]https://i.imgur.com/CKOdgoN.png[/img] You are drawing correlations like this. People are pointing out that Nicolas Cage's film proliferation has nothing to do with people drowning in pools and pool drownings are caused by other factors not related to Nicolas Cage. What you're doing is not how statistics work at all. Just because two lines seem to match up on a graph doesn't mean one is the cause of the other. Examples such as Serbia and the Czech Republic showing that the link doesn't hold up are perfectly valid and don't need to be further justified.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166643]How is Serbia a counter example? Serbia isn't facing extreme poverty and social unrest like our poverty hot spots, which is exactly WHY it's a good example of what I'm putting across. Are you denying that Serbia has high gun ownership and low gun crime?[/QUOTE] I'm asking for evidence of correlation, that implies giving statistics that support it. What is your purported threshold for "extreme poverty" that means Serbia's "regular poverty" has no influence on gun crime? How do murder rates scale with it?

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166652]I'm asking for evidence of correlation, that implies giving statistics that support it. What is your purported threshold for "extreme poverty" that means Serbia's "regular poverty" has no influence on gun crime? How do murder rates scale with it?[/QUOTE] I'm not suggesting that there is an inverse correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, I'm stating that there is [U]no direct relation at all.[/U] When you say there is a correlation between Nicolas Cage films and pool drownings and I say "no there's not," that doesn't mean I'm saying more Nic Cage means less pool drownings. I'm saying they [B]aren't directly related[/B] and I can prove it with examples of gun ownership not being linked with a gun crime rate in other countries.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166643][img]https://i.imgur.com/CKOdgoN.png[/img] You are drawing correlations like this. People are pointing out that Nicolas Cage's film proliferation has nothing to do with people drowning in pools and pool drownings are caused by other factors not related to Nicolas Cage. What you're doing is not how statistics work at all.[/QUOTE] What? How the fuck are you drawing that from my posts? Please point to where I said anything like this. I'm asking you to support your claim that there's a correlation between extreme poverty and gun crime.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166224]You're the one who talks about inverse correlation and talks about murder rates when the actual subject of the conversation is mass shootings, but hey it's not like you're going to even acknowledge that. You're not going to admit that your entire line of reasoning is disingenuous.[/QUOTE] You're free to only talk about mass shootings, but I would argue that it's ideologically driven. You want to focus on mass shootings because they're more emotional and easier to get reaction to. There's no actual policy or moral reason to focus only on mass shootings and not on the MUCH LARGER problem of overall gun violence, especially when mass shootings are very anecdotal in nature, small in sample size, and hard to analyse as a group. [QUOTE]I'm the one who has mentioned any actual figures here. You failed to show any actual evidence yourself despite having demanding standards in that regard.[/QUOTE] First of all, the "figures" you've shown have been meaningless to your argument. You don't get credit for throwing around numbers when they don't support what you're saying. Also, I have provided real numbers. I'm mentioned that the number of guns does not correlate well, and even has a negative correlation in the US as a whole. You've done literally nothing to overcome that simple point. [QUOTE]You demand that I present complete proof and yet you fail to provide any that would show a correlation between an alternative cause and mass shooting occurrences. So far the [I]only[/I] hypothesis that has any data behind it is gun availability. How about you start doing some work yourself for once to actually defend your point?[/QUOTE] 1) It has no meaningful data. 2) There are dozens of alternate ideas, but I don't need to present them to show how your proposition is wrong. Discussion doesn't work by the first person to come up with a theory, no matter how unsupported, being right until another person comes along with another theory. You are the one arguing for a policy change. It's 100% your responsibility to demonstrate that your policy is better than what currently exists. You've come nowhere close to doing so.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166661]I'm not suggesting that there is an inverse correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, I'm stating that there is [U]no direct relation at all.[/U][/QUOTE] Where have I asked you to show an inverse correlation between gun ownership and gun crime? I'm asking you to support your claim that there's a correlation between poverty and gun crime!

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166665]Where have I asked you to show an inverse correlation between gun ownership and gun crime? I'm asking you to support your claim that there's a correlation between poverty and gun crime![/QUOTE] I have, but here. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(100,000%E2%80%93250,000)[/url] Sort by murder rate and compare with poverty rates. There is a clear, reliable correlation across multiple examples. Large urban areas with extreme poverty are reliable sources of intense crime rates. This is a repeatable experiment. Your correlation, guns=violence is not, as demonstrated by MANY other countries. The chain goes like this: poverty + population = gangs. gangs = crime. Gang crime accounts for the vast majority of violence in this country. Again, this is repeatable across multiple urban areas.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53166663]First of all, the "figures" you've shown have been meaningless to your argument. You don't get credit for throwing around numbers when they don't support what you're saying. Also, I have provided real numbers. I'm mentioned that the number of guns does not correlate well, and even has a negative correlation in the US as a whole. You've done literally nothing to overcome that simple point.[/quote] Yes I have. I've demonstrated why inverse correlation doesn't necessarily mean lack of influence in a multiple causes scenario. Your dismissal doesn't change that fact. [Quote]1) It has no meaningful data. 2) There are dozens of alternate ideas, but I don't need to present them to show how your proposition is wrong. Discussion doesn't work by the first person to come up with a theory, no matter how unsupported, being right until another person comes along with another theory. You are the one arguing for a policy change. It's 100% your responsibility to demonstrate that your policy is better than what currently exists. You've come nowhere close to doing so.[/QUOTE] You haven't shown my proposition is wrong, for the aforementioned reasons.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166675]Yes I have. I've demonstrated why inverse correlation doesn't necessarily mean lack of influence in a multiple causes scenario. Your dismissal doesn't change that fact. You haven't shown my proposition is wrong, for the aforementioned reasons.[/QUOTE] Plugging your ears and saying we haven't proven you wrong doesn't mean we haven't proven you wrong. You've been shown multiple examples flatly disproving your correlation. The only reliable relationship between guns and crime is that guns are required in order to have any gun crime, but that doesn't have any bearing on crime in general. That is the same relationship between any thing and any other activity carried out using that thing. You can't have street races without automobiles. You can't get drunk without alcohol. Apparently, you can't drown without Nicolas Cage movies. These relationships don't mean that one thing is responsible for the other thing.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53166675]Yes I have. I've demonstrated why inverse correlation doesn't necessarily mean lack of influence in a multiple causes scenario. Your dismissal doesn't change that fact.[/QUOTE] ... I don't think you understand the argument being made. I'm not saying, "Hey, because there's an inverse correlation, guns can't possibly be the cause." I'm saying, "Hey, the top level data shows that it's unlikely, but if you have very strong evidence that counteracts this negative correlation, then be my guest." Your respond has been nill. [QUOTE]You haven't shown my proposition is wrong, for the aforementioned reasons.[/QUOTE] You haven't given an actual argument beyond throwing around unsupported claims.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53164923]did you miss the part where he said[/QUOTE] Literally the 2nd amendment also says "well-regulated"

[QUOTE=vin_L;53170190]Literally the 2nd amendment also says "well-regulated"[/QUOTE] When it was written, the word "regulated" was more comparable in definition to the word "disciplined"; because language evolves and to find the true meaning you have to look at it through the context of the English language in the late 1700's, not the English language in the 2010's. Now if you complained that not enough gun owners were disciplined, then I would agree because discipline is very important when handling a firearm.

[QUOTE=vin_L;53170190]Literally the 2nd amendment also says "well-regulated"[/QUOTE] [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20180201191936/http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53170360][url]https://web.archive.org/web/20180201191936/http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/url][/QUOTE] I'm sure Scalia had considered all that [url]http://www.newsweek.com/antonin-scalia-ronald-reagan-supreme-court-orlando-shooting-newtown-sandy-hook-472460[/url] [editline]2nd March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53170352]When it was written, the word "regulated" was more comparable in definition to the word "disciplined"; because language evolves and to find the true meaning you have to look at it through the context of the English language in the late 1700's, not the English language in the 2010's. Now if you complained that not enough gun owners were disciplined, then I would agree because discipline is very important when handling a firearm.[/QUOTE]

Why do people keep trying to find hidden meanings of wording of the 2nd amendment. The intent of it is pretty damn obvious; that people should have a right to be armed so the population would have the means to oppose a hostile takeover of the government or a government which goes rogue. The people who wrote the damn thing had just gone through a long bloody insurrection against their own former country to claim independence. [QUOTE=GunFox;53167102]The second amendment is protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The militia was an official part of the government. It is mentioned in the Constitution itself in both the articles for the president and Congress. The president is given the power to call forth the militia specifically to put down insurrection in the US. SO THEN: why, in the section of the Constitution where the people are reserving specific rights for the people, would there be an amendment telling the government that the government can't disarm....the...government? Because that isn't what it is fucking saying. They fought a war that spent a good deal of time fighting the loyalist militia. They also recognized that a militia was necessary for a government to function because it needed some means of enforcement and quelling insurrection. The second amendment is stating that because a militia is a necessary evil for the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment is a check on the government militia. (Note that the militia was supposed to be the only regular military arm of the federal government. We weren't supposed to retain a standing army)[/QUOTE]