2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on September 16, 2014, 04:33:50 PM
-
Anyone want to guess what he specifically has in mind as "common-sense reforms"? I'd be willing to wager that whatever they are, that there is no evidence that will stand up to critical scrutiny that said "reforms" will have any measurable effect upon improving "public safety", and likely the opposite.
September 16, 2014
Statement by the President
One year ago, our dedicated military and civilian personnel at the Washington Navy Yard were targeted in an unspeakable act of violence that took the lives of 12 American patriots. As we remember men and women taken from us so senselessly, we keep close their family and friends, stand with the survivors who continue to heal and pay tribute to the first responders who acted with skill and bravery. At the same time, we continue to improve security at our country’s bases and installations to protect our military and civilian personnel who help keep us safe. One year ago, 12 Americans went to work to protect and strengthen the country they loved. Today, we must do the same – rejecting atrocities like these as the new normal and renewing our call for common-sense reforms that respect our traditions while reducing the gun violence that shatters too many American families every day.
-
They say common sense when they either don't want to detail their plan or have no idea what they are really going to try to do. "Common sense answers" is just a feel good sound good answer that will make enough people not question the plan.
-
The 2nd amendment is not a "tradition" Mr. Oblabber. It's the "Law of The Land", please get that through your thick skull.
Nobody that I know accepts murder of ANY KIND as "normal". The only thing we have begun to except as the "norm" is that our judicial system will put these violent offenders back on the streets of our neighborhoods as quickly as they can, and then wonder "why" they haven't learned their lesson after they commit the same, or an even more heinous crime once released.
In short sir, the only thing we except as the "norm" is our government failing to do its job, and costing us more money every year to do it.
Idiot.
-
I can see how it might be hard to see the real facts...
He's a moron, blinded by his own ambitions, whose perspective is further muddled by the thick fog of idiocy and contempt that shrouds his administration.
-
Looks like some long wait times at HPD! :rofl:
-
I don't see this as a black and white issue, I do not believe that it is all or non in terms of what firearms are legal, thus I think there is a gray area and courts have upheld there being a gray area (some types of arms are illegal). So when we discuss gun control we need to acknowledge a certain amount of power to regulate firearms. The problem with Obama's statement is that common sense is a very vague statement that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Common sense firearm control is different depending on who you ask.
Realistically all we are doing is deciding on where to draw the line in the grey zone. Most don't want all arms legal and most don't want all arms illegal so we are stuck pushing a line back and forth. I don't think we will ever find a perfectly happy medium.
-
F*ck happy medium. I and every one else that is a responsible citizen should be able to own whatever we want.
Gun control laws do not prevent one iota of crime. There is no "Pre-crime" department, it's BS from a movie. They can't extrapolate from the type of weapon that someone owns what they will do with it.
Criminals will get guns because they ignore the law, the only people affected will be the law abiding.
If I use my M1A1 tank or my RPG responsibly, nobody need be alarmed. If I use it with illegal and malicious intent, I should go to jail or be put to death.
This should be a "black and white" issue. The insistence of our lawmakers and puling do gooders that there be "grey areas" is a huge part of the problem.
There are no restrictions put forth in the Second Amendment.
All the scared pussies that don't like it should move to Europe.
-
He's a jackass who is being controlled by rich fools who think they can play god. They also want to control the world Dr Evil style.
-
I don't see this as a black and white issue, I do not believe that it is all or non in terms of what firearms are legal, thus I think there is a gray area and courts have upheld there being a gray area (some types of arms are illegal). So when we discuss gun control we need to acknowledge a certain amount of power to regulate firearms. The problem with Obama's statement is that common sense is a very vague statement that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Common sense firearm control is different depending on who you ask.
Realistically all we are doing is deciding on where to draw the line in the grey zone. Most don't want all arms legal and most don't want all arms illegal so we are stuck pushing a line back and forth. I don't think we will ever find a perfectly happy medium.
That's the whole problem with your thinking. You somehow think the gun control side of the equation has a basis in reality. They are not about common sense, or happy mediums, or even drawing a line. They are all about an agenda. Think about that word: AGENDA. What, exactly, does that mean?
It means that, no matter what the perceived problem is, they already have the "solution." For example, after Sandy Hook, they wanted to once again ban AR-15s. Why? The 1994 ban proved there was NO impact on crime, which is why there was little resistance to allow it to expire in 2004. The CDC report Obama directed proved that the ban did nothing for reducing crime, just as not having a ban does not increase crime.
So, don't think for one minute the politicians and supporters of gun control want to fix anything EXCEPT the so-called "epidemic" of "gun violence." Facts show the rates of gun crimes are lower over the last 2 decades. What epidemic??
They use the tragedies of mass shootings (also not at a higher rate than the last 40 years) to push an agenda. These are not solutions, nor are they "compromises." The anti's lose NOTHING by this "compromise."
If the gun control side could actually articulate a SPECIFIC and FOCUSED problem and how a SPECIFIC and TARGETED solution would actually address the problem, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately for everyone, it's all emotional and ignorant. The so called "experts" in the legislatures are clueless about guns. There is plenty of evidence to support that statement.
Let's put this in perspective. If you have a belief that everyone would benefit from cutting out video games from our lives, then every time someone suffered from obesity, eye problems, bad grades, poor personal hygiene, etc, you'd create massive ad campaigns about how the video games are to blame. You'd be lobbying for laws against gaming, pushing for common sense time limits on how long games run before a mandatory "cooling off" period, addiction programs, and taxes for game manufacturers.
None of these acts will fix anything. They are merely incremental changes until one day, you've made gaming so vilified and feared, people choose to no longer play them.
The only solution that will satisfy the people against something is a 100% ban on private ownership. That's the ONLY solution they will finally accept. Unfortunately, once the solution arrives, and we find out it was wrong, it'll be impossible to reverse.
-
F*ck happy medium. I and every one else that is a responsible citizen should be able to own whatever we want.
Ok, one question then just to clear up my understanding of your stance.
Take an individual who has serious mental disorders, any combination you can think of from basic mental retardation to disorders like paranoid schizophrenia or being psychotic but that person has not broken a single law and has never threatened to use violence. Should the government be able to restrict that person from possessing a firearm?
I ask because it seems to be that this is an issue where I see both parties agreeing on the gun control, that something needs to be done to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. Problem is though that a paranoid schizophrenic is still a legal person with legal rights guaranteed by the constitution so if the 2nd amendment is black and white then we cannot prevent them from owning firearms, especially if they have committed no crime.
-
That's the whole problem with your thinking. You somehow think the gun control side of the equation has a basis in reality. They are not about common sense, or happy mediums, or even drawing a line. They are all about an agenda. Think about that word: AGENDA. What, exactly, does that mean?
It means that, no matter what the perceived problem is, they already have the "solution." For example, after Sandy Hook, they wanted to once again ban AR-15s. Why? The 1994 ban proved there was NO impact on crime, which is why there was little resistance to allow it to expire in 2004. The CDC report Obama directed proved that the ban did nothing for reducing crime, just as not having a ban does not increase crime.
So, don't think for one minute the politicians and supporters of gun control want to fix anything EXCEPT the so-called "epidemic" of "gun violence." Facts show the rates of gun crimes are lower over the last 2 decades. What epidemic??
They use the tragedies of mass shootings (also not at a higher rate than the last 40 years) to push an agenda. These are not solutions, nor are they "compromises." The anti's lose NOTHING by this "compromise."
If the gun control side could actually articulate a SPECIFIC and FOCUSED problem and how a SPECIFIC and TARGETED solution would actually address the problem, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately for both sides, it's all emotional and ignorant. The so called "experts" in the legislatures are clueless about guns. There is plenty of evidence to support that statement.
Let's put this in perspective. If you have a belief that everyone would benefit from cutting out video games from our lives, then every time someone suffered from obesity, eye problems, bad grades, poor personal hygiene, etc, you'd create massive ad campaigns about how the video games are to blame. Youd be lobbying for laws against gaming, pushing for common sense time limits on how long games run before a mandatory "cooling off" period, addiction programs, and taxes for game manufacturers.
None of these acts will fix anything. They are merely incremental changes until one day, you've made gaming so vilified and feared, people choose to no longer play them.
The only solution that will satisfy the people against something is a 100% ban on private ownership. That's the ONLY solution they will finally accept. unfortunately, one the solution arrives, and we find out it was wrong, it'll be impossible to reverse.
Maui, I must disagree because I know many individuals who are against firearms similar to an Ak47/AR15 but have absolutely no problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun. You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true. We can nitpick the arguments of the gun control advocates and find the reasonable to the absurd but it isn't all some conspiracy theory. My grandma, for example, is against people owning a 30rd AR15 but she owns a .22 bolt action. She clearly doesn't fit into the image you paint of them all wanting no one to have any guns. It really is more of a sliding scale where you will find many different levels of what types of firearms should be allowed and to who. I agree about the emotional arguments not based on data but there are a significant number out there who want some gun control without all guns being made illegal.
-
Maui, I must disagree because I know many individuals who are against firearms similar to an Ak47/AR15 but have absolutely no problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun. You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true. We can nitpick the arguments of the gun control advocates and find the reasonable to the absurd but it isn't all some conspiracy theory. My grandma, for example, is against people owning a 30rd AR15 but she owns a .22 bolt action. She clearly doesn't fit into the image you paint of them all wanting no one to have any guns. It really is more of a sliding scale where you will find many different levels of what types of firearms should be allowed and to who. I agree about the emotional arguments not based on data but there are a significant number out there who want some gun control without all guns being made illegal.
Since you know these people who are against some guns and not others, what, exactly, is their reasoning for banning AR15/AK style weapons? What part of the gun violence problem do they believe this will solve?
There has to be logic in their opinions, or else my original evaluation stands: emotion and ignorance.
-
Since you know these people who are against some guns and not others, what, exactly, is their reasoning for banning AR15/AK style weapons? What part of the gun violence problem do they believe this will solve?
There has to be logic in their opinions, or else my original evaluation stands: emotion and ignorance.
Well, for my grandmother at least, it appears to me she is against the high rate of fire combined with high capacity of ammo. These are desirable traits in a combat firearm and are not traits needed for hunting/target shooting. Basically when bad guys want to go shooting the high capacity semi auto ability makes it a lot easier to do a lot of damage. That is probably the best I could summarize her argument. She is not one of those "OMG the gun is black colored so its only for assaulting" type people.
-
Well, for my grandmother at least, it appears to me she is against the high rate of fire combined with high capacity of ammo. These are desirable traits in a combat firearm and are not traits needed for hunting/target shooting. Basically when bad guys want to go shooting the high capacity semi auto ability makes it a lot easier to do a lot of damage. That is probably the best I could summarize her argument. She is not one of those "OMG the gun is black colored so its only for assaulting" type people.
Since when is the 2nd Amendment about hunting and target shooting?
-
The second amendment is not about hunting/target shooting. It is a means to resist tyranny and personal defense.
Your grandmother's fear is irrational. She is fearing the potential of a weapon. It is an emotional argument which is based on ignorance since less than 2% of all gun crimes use so called "assault rifles".
Standard capacity magazines are desirable traits in a firearm not only for combat use but defensive use. A recent example are shop owners that defended their shops during the Ferguson riots.
-
Maui, I must disagree because I know many individuals who are against firearms similar to an Ak47/AR15 but have absolutely no problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun. You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true. We can nitpick the arguments of the gun control advocates and find the reasonable to the absurd but it isn't all some conspiracy theory. My grandma, for example, is against people owning a 30rd AR15 but she owns a .22 bolt action. She clearly doesn't fit into the image you paint of them all wanting no one to have any guns. It really is more of a sliding scale where you will find many different levels of what types of firearms should be allowed and to who. I agree about the emotional arguments not based on data but there are a significant number out there who want some gun control without all guns being made illegal.
My view is that the people you speak of who are NOT for totally banning civilian ownership of firearms, but support banning "only" certain particular firearms are 1. grossly misinformed (uniformed/ignorant?) about the statistics and nature of causality regarding firearms and their use in crimes by criminals, and/or 2. grossly misinformed/uninformed about the true intentions (total civilian disarmament) of the lobbying organizations (Brady, Everytown, MDAFGSIA, ARS, etc) and PACS that are working for "partial bans" (though as pointed out in another thread here they have temporarily backed off their efforts re the "assault weapons" bans). Do these people, including your grandmother, know that the National Coalition to Ban Handguns is now known as The Brady Campaign? Does she know that those rifles she doesn't want anyone to own are used in less than 3% of firearm-related homicides, while handguns are involved in over 80% of firearm-related homicides? What is her logic for banning the one rarely used category, and not the frequently-used firearm category? Inform her of the statistics and ask her what her logical conclusion (and her logic) is about which firearms ought to be removed from the possession of law-abiding citizens.
Misinformed/uninformed people may have "good intentions", which, of course, paves that road to hell. In my view, especially if they give any kind of support to any organization that has the muscle/money to influence legislators (law-making) and elections, they are dupes of the civilian disarmament movement. Their possible votes for politicians (and laws those politicians pass) who will achieve this goal, misinformed or not, is an ignorant capitulation to those who would like to see a strict government monopoly of violence.
Although the current crop of prohibitionists rarely make public statements about their desire for total civilian disarmament due to the unpopularity of such sentiments (that's why Brady became Brady and no longer the National Coalition to Ban Handguns), occasionally they do utter such statements. You can find these quotes from the heads of various organizations. Here is a link to an essay published on the Daily Kos, with an excerpt. Anyone who thinks total civilian disarmament isn't the goal of all these groups is naive at best, a willing dupe and traitor to the Constitution at worst. (The author explains why even .22s must be banned: they kill people. He doesn't mention cars, knives, hammers or swimming pools, each of which kills more people than .22s. Go figure.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process)
How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it: ...
-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process)
How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it: ...
Thank you for finding that. I was going to point out the terrible naivete or deliberate misinformation of:
" You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true."
But finding some of the bleating where they have shown their true agenda is invaluable.
-
Thank you for finding that. I was going to point out the terrible naivete or deliberate misinformation of:
" You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true."
But finding some of the bleating where they have shown their true agenda is invaluable.
I believe the OP was claiming that NOT EVERYONE who wants to ban "some" guns, wants to ban ALL guns. That was the point of my post, that those people are naive if they think that the organizations with the money to influence elections, politicians, and legislation (laws) DON'T have the intent to ban all civilian firearm ownership, because they do. Thus the word "dupes".
Here's an article with a long list (and it's still relatively short compared to all that's out there) of quotes from prominent people in the TOTAL civilian disarmament camp., with only a few examples.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/seriously-one-wants-take-guns/#more-329740 (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/seriously-one-wants-take-guns/#more-329740)
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does [want to ban all guns].
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.
“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”
Boston’s police commissioner, William Evans, asked about why police should have control over who is “suitable” to own a shotgun or rifle (low capacity, non semi-auto)
“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” July 23, 2014 [That would include your grandmother's .22 bolt action.]
Former Senator John Chafee (R – RI):
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992.
Then-Senator Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE):
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993
Former Representative Major Owens (D – NY):
“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”
Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL):
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”
And on and on and on and on...
-
The Brady Campaign started out with the AGENDA of banning all semi-auto handguns. They thought most private owners had revolvers and hunting rifles, and that the public equated semi-auto pistols with criminals. They assumed they could convince people there is no need, and only negative results, for owning semi-auto pistols.
What they discovered was a much larger number of semi-auto pistol owners, and that the public believes in them for personal protection. Therefore, their agenda failed.
Over time, they decided to shift attention to weapons they can get public support to ban. People who are ignorant and have no personal "dog in the fight" (i.e don't own "assault style weapons") won't put up much of a fight to prevent a ban. Demonizing a type of semi-auto rifle with the capability to hold 30 rounds of ammo without reloading is a scare tactic. There are no studies or statistics which support the premise these weapons are more or less dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle OR handgun.
Case in point: the school shooting with the largest body/casualty count was not Columbine. It was Virginia Tech. The mentally ill student used a Walther P22 with a 10rd mag, and a Glock 19 with a 15rd mag. He shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks, approximately two hours apart, before committing suicide (another six people were injured escaping from classroom windows).
Are we talking about banning these 2 pistols? Why not? These are important questions to consider. If the goal is to actually solve a problem, why are we focused on types of firearms not used in the worst massacres?
You can tell whether or not people have genuine knowledge of firearms by the vocabulary they use. if they say, "Military style weapons", "weapons of war", "high capacity clips", and "nobody needs (fill in the blank)", then they are parroting what the Left and anti-s have fed them. Banning does one thing: it forces YOUR choice on EVERYONE ELSE without affording them the same freedom to choose for themselves.
-
Since when is the 2nd Amendment about hunting and target shooting?
Not my point.
My point is that there are a lot of individuals who want some types of firearms banned but not all firearms banned. This is in contrast to the claim that everyone on the pro gun control side wants to ban any and all firearms.
I think we do ourselves a disservice if we misrepresent our opponents so greatly.
-
The second amendment is not about hunting/target shooting. It is a means to resist tyranny and personal defense.
Your grandmother's fear is irrational. She is fearing the potential of a weapon. It is an emotional argument which is based on ignorance since less than 2% of all gun crimes use so called "assault rifles".
Standard capacity magazines are desirable traits in a firearm not only for combat use but defensive use. A recent example are shop owners that defended their shops during the Ferguson riots.
I would say it is not the potential so much as it is the capabilities.
The fear is not irrational, it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real. If we managed to solve our gang problem then we would see the mass shootings become a much higher percentage of gun murders in america. To an individual who lost someone from a mass shooting this is a real issue and it is personal. Think of one of the recent mass shootings involving AR-15 rifles. Now imagine that the perpetrator was only able to get his hands on a lower rate of fire rifle such as a bolt action or lever action. It is fairly safe to reason that the body count would be significantly lower because of the limitations of said guns. Real lives that were lost that might have been saved were high capacity/high rate of firearms made illegal. To a person who lost a child it is emotional but not irrational. I am not saying I agree with them but I can put myself in their shoes and see why they are saying what they are saying.
I think my grandma would also say the same thing about high capacity semi auto pistols which are involved in a lot more than 2% of gun murders. The rifles just seem to get more attention than pistols but that is probably because the crazy mass shooting people that get all the attention end up choosing those types.
-
Does she know that those rifles she doesn't want anyone to own are used in less than 3% of firearm-related homicides, while handguns are involved in over 80% of firearm-related homicides? What is her logic for banning the one rarely used category, and not the frequently-used firearm category?
I am pretty sure she would be just as interested in the restriction of certain handguns for the same reasons. I did not mean to imply that she only cared about assault rifles. As for the rest of your statement I think my reply just above this one covers most of what you brought up.
-
Deleted to start a separate thread.
-
I am pretty sure she would be just as interested in the restriction of certain handguns for the same reasons. I did not mean to imply that she only cared about assault rifles. As for the rest of your statement I think my reply just above this one covers most of what you brought up.
Uh huh. You failed to mention that she wants to ban other firearms besides the "30rd AR15". Again, I ask you, what is her logical argument (assumptions, premises, conclusion) and the data that support her assumptions? Just tell us. If you don't know, ask her. Maybe you could make a list of all the guns that she would allow, or disallow, whichever is shortest. I'm always curious to see the arguments, logic (or lack thereof) and the data upon which people base their conclusions and statements about firearm issues. Since you claim your grandmother owns a firearm but wants numerous firearms banned, please enlighten us so we can consider the validity of her reasoning. There is some logic to her assertions, correct? Or is it a case of "I just feel that..."?
-
Uh huh. You failed to mention that she wants to ban other firearms besides the "30rd AR15". Again, I ask you, what is her logical argument (assumptions, premises, conclusion) and the data that support her assumptions? Just tell us. If you don't know, ask her. Maybe you could make a list of all the guns that she would allow, or disallow, whichever is shortest. I'm always curious to see the arguments, logic (or lack thereof) and the data upon which people base their conclusions and statements about firearm issues. Since you claim your grandmother owns a firearm but wants numerous firearms banned, please enlighten us so we can consider the validity of her reasoning. There is some logic to her assertions, correct? Or is it a case of "I just feel that..."?
I gave her reasons as being high rates of fire and large ammo capacity, this can obviously apply to rifles or pistols. I am not going to sit down to show her a thousand different guns to get such a list.
My point in mentioning her was simply to illustrate that there are people in the middle ground of the debate. , I don't imagine you would agree with all of her reasoning but then a lot of other people wouldn't agree with our reasonings either.
This position I present in contrast to someone who claims that a gun should be banned because of stupid reasons like being black or having a pistol grip, traits which do not affect the capabilities of the firearm.
-
I would say it is not the potential so much as it is the capabilities.
The fear is not irrational, it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real. If we managed to solve our gang problem then we would see the mass shootings become a much higher percentage of gun murders in america. To an individual who lost someone from a mass shooting this is a real issue and it is personal. Think of one of the recent mass shootings involving AR-15 rifles. Now imagine that the perpetrator was only able to get his hands on a lower rate of fire rifle such as a bolt action or lever action. It is fairly safe to reason that the body count would be significantly lower because of the limitations of said guns. Real lives that were lost that might have been saved were high capacity/high rate of firearms made illegal. To a person who lost a child it is emotional but not irrational. I am not saying I agree with them but I can put myself in their shoes and see why they are saying what they are saying.
I think my grandma would also say the same thing about high capacity semi auto pistols which are involved in a lot more than 2% of gun murders. The rifles just seem to get more attention than pistols but that is probably because the crazy mass shooting people that get all the attention end up choosing those types.
1. Even if you solved the gang problem mass shootings will still be a insignificant amount of murders in America. Murder is murder with or without a gun.
2. It's okay to be emotional over a lost but when you make choices that go against facts then your actions are irrational.
3. Instead of imagining a bad guy with a low capacity magazine, I'd rather imagine a good guy with a standard capacity magazine that can neutralize the threat.
-
I gave her reasons as being high rates of fire and large ammo capacity, this can obviously apply to rifles or pistols. I am not going to sit down to show her a thousand different guns to get such a list.
My point in mentioning her was simply to illustrate that there are people in the middle ground of the debate. , I don't imagine you would agree with all of her reasoning but then a lot of other people wouldn't agree with our reasonings either.
This position I present in contrast to someone who claims that a gun should be banned because of stupid reasons like being black or having a pistol grip, traits which do not affect the capabilities of the firearm.
I asked for specifics of her logic and data, and the specifics of which firearms are therefore to be banned precisely because this is the vague kind of blather that the prohibitionists use to create legislation banning their current crop of "dangerous weapons" that "no one needs" for hunting, sporting purposes, self-defense, etc. From what I can read, most of the people who support (e.g. donate money and vote for politicians who will enact "commonsense gun safety regulations" (e.g. "firepower" and "capacity limitations")) have poor arguments lacking both logic and sound data to support those views.
Please define "high rate of fire". More than one round every 10 seconds, or what? Any semi-auto (long gun or handgun), any pump action or lever action firearm, and any revolver can be fired at rates higher than one round per second. If those are all to be banned, I'd like to know about it, because even though you claim that would be the position of "someone in the middle", it effectively would deny someone a significant portion of people's ability to defend themselves in numerous criminal assault situations. So what is the position, exactly and specifically, of "someone in the middle"? And what is their "compromise" re which "non-dangerous" guns will be allowed?
Please define "large ammo capacity". 30? Apparently, since you state that number, but what about 20? 10? 6? 5? 2? I'm asking because you are extremely vague about it, and give the fact that your grandmother owns a single shot firearm as evidence that she is not for banning all firearms, and is therefore evidence of "middle ground". Therefore I ask you which firearms are to be banned and you respond with vague guidelines, just like the prohibitionists do. You really have no evidence at all that limiting the ammunition capacity of any firearms would have lowered, nor will lower the number of deaths caused by criminals using firearms. Plus, of course, banning (and then eventually confiscating) all these "dangerous" weapons from law-abiding citizens will have absolutely no effect on the ability of criminals to obtain and use such "dangerous" weapons in the commission of crimes (See: Great Britain).
So please be specific about your criteria for banning weapons, and please be specific about citing your research data that shows that such bans will have a significant (or even any) effect on gun crimes. Otherwise you're guilty of arguing so vaguely that a law enforcing your position could be almost anything other than banning .22 caliber single shot long guns. And to come to that conclusion, you'd have to be using some "stupid reasons."
By the way, could you cite the law you mention wherein guns were banned for being black?
Edit: Along these lines, just saw this quote... seems to echo the possible view of the grandmother... they never stop...
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2014/09/17/quote-of-the-dayaaron-peori/ (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2014/09/17/quote-of-the-dayaaron-peori/)
Quote of the day—Aaron Peori
Posted on September 17, 2014
No handguns.
No automatics of any kind.
Single action long arms will fulfill all the needs of home defense, hunting and sport.
Aaron Peori
September 11, 2014
-
Dang... you could complete Phase 1 of the Rail Project using just the walls o' text from this thread.
In my opinion, without her being an active participant in the conversation, demanding explanations/clarifications of (and providing justifications for) EEF's Grandma's beliefs is an exercise in futility.
Again, just my opinion... carry on!
-
Dang... you could complete Phase 1 of the Rail Project using just the walls o' text from this thread.
In my opinion, without her being an active participant in the conversation, demanding explanations/clarifications of (and providing justifications for) EEF's Grandma's beliefs is an exercise in futility.
Again, just my opinion... carry on!
Guilty as charged. Again. :geekdanc:
Carrying on, as instructed: a coincidental article posted today:
http://bearingarms.com/came-bolt-actions/ (http://bearingarms.com/came-bolt-actions/)
And Then They Came For The Bolt-Actions
Excerpt:
You can find them in every gun store in even the most restrictive states in the nation, and with good reason; bolt-action rifles are among the most ubiquitous rifles in the United States, and have been in deer camps and military arsenals in the United States since the Palmer carbine was used in the U.S. Civil War.
Now two separate gun control groups are attempting to restrict access to them.
...
Apparently, they’re now going to go after bolt-action rifles used for hunting, calling them “sniper rifles,” comparing their owners to “insurrectionists” and”terrorists” as they attempt to push universal background checks as a de facto gun registry.
-
Guilty as charged. Again. :geekdanc:
Carrying on, as instructed: a coincidental article posted today:
http://bearingarms.com/came-bolt-actions/ (http://bearingarms.com/came-bolt-actions/)
And Then They Came For The Bolt-Actions
Excerpt:
You can find them in every gun store in even the most restrictive states in the nation, and with good reason; bolt-action rifles are among the most ubiquitous rifles in the United States, and have been in deer camps and military arsenals in the United States since the Palmer carbine was used in the U.S. Civil War.
Now two separate gun control groups are attempting to restrict access to them.
...
Apparently, they’re now going to go after bolt-action rifles used for hunting, calling them “sniper rifles,” comparing their owners to “insurrectionists” and”terrorists” as they attempt to push universal background checks as a de facto gun registry.
Thanks for posting the link, PP.
I read the article and, in my opinion, the title of the article is kind of misleading.
The first portion refers to the National Victims Action Council's call to restrict (ban) the $27,500.00, technologically-advanced TrackingPoint PGF.
The second portion refers to CeaseFire PA's call for increased restrictions on ALL long guns, following the shooting of two state troopers by an individual using a .308 rifle (the article does not specifically identify a bolt-action).
Granted, the article does highlight continued efforts to further restrict firearm ownership.
-
I would say it is not the potential so much as it is the capabilities.
The fear is not irrational, it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real. If we managed to solve our gang problem then we would see the mass shootings become a much higher percentage of gun murders in america. To an individual who lost someone from a mass shooting this is a real issue and it is personal. Think of one of the recent mass shootings involving AR-15 rifles. Now imagine that the perpetrator was only able to get his hands on a lower rate of fire rifle such as a bolt action or lever action. It is fairly safe to reason that the body count would be significantly lower because of the limitations of said guns. Real lives that were lost that might have been saved were high capacity/high rate of firearms made illegal. To a person who lost a child it is emotional but not irrational. I am not saying I agree with them but I can put myself in their shoes and see why they are saying what they are saying.
I think my grandma would also say the same thing about high capacity semi auto pistols which are involved in a lot more than 2% of gun murders. The rifles just seem to get more attention than pistols but that is probably because the crazy mass shooting people that get all the attention end up choosing those types.
I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are saying?
The fear is not irrational
That means it is rational, based on some reasonable supporting information or knowledge.
it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real.
This is the same thing as being paranoid your neighbor is a serial killer. He's a nice, quiet guy, keeps to himself, doesn't seem to socialize or have many visitors ... you know, all those things people tend to notice about serial killers after they get caught.
To borrow your words, "but they {serial killers] are real."
Is it rational to believe your neighbors are serial killers even though the chances/instances of this happening is a sliver of a fraction of the entire population?
If you answer "No," then you must also admit it's just as irrational to fear a firearm because a super-small percentage of people who commit gun crimes decided to use an AR or AK.
The term "PHOBIA" exists for a reason. They are IRRATIONAL fears based not on reasoning, but on emotion and unrealistic beliefs.
(http://i.imgur.com/AgS3PJB.jpg)
-
I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are saying?
The fear is not irrational
That means it is rational, based on some reasonable supporting information or knowledge.
it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real.
This is the same thing as being paranoid your neighbor is a serial killer. He's a nice, quiet guy, keeps to himself, doesn't seem to socialize or have many visitors ... you know, all those things people tend to notice about serial killers after they get caught.
To borrow your words, "but they {serial killers] are real."
Is it rational to believe your neighbors are serial killers even though the chances/instances of this happening is a sliver of a fraction of the entire population?
If you answer "No," then you must also admit it's just as irrational to fear a firearm because a super-small percentage of people who commit gun crimes decided to use an AR or AK.
The term "PHOBIA" exists for a reason. They are IRRATIONAL fears based not on reasoning, but on emotion and unrealistic beliefs.
The belief that if they had banned firearms like the at-15 fewer people would have died in many of these mass shootings is not irrational because it can be based on articulateable facts. The same argument is made for denying people with mental illness having firearms.
Now for someone who is just against guns because we have so many gun murders it is irrational to target mass shootings because statistically it is a small percent. But for someone who lost a loved one it is rational to want to focus on such instances. For them if some new regulation saved a few dozen lives around the country then it was worth it in their eyes. You and I may not agree with that level of restriction but that doesn't mean it is irrational. They are looking for something they can do to prevent more loss of life and some of them base this off of actual things that would make a difference. The argument is rational but it is a freedom/right/privilege that we are not willing to give up in trade. We would have a lot fewer alcohol related deaths if the world gave up booze (a rational argument) but too many simply aren't willing to give up their love for alcohol.
A lot of people think we do not currently need protection from the government so they think arguments of firearms for protection from the government are irrational. We have two sides both pointing at each other claiming the other to be irrational, we shouldn't necessarily alienate people in the middle.
-
The belief that if they had banned firearms like the at-15 fewer people would have died in many of these mass shootings is not irrational because it can be based on articulateable facts. The same argument is made for denying people with mental illness having firearms.
Now for someone who is just against guns because we have so many gun murders it is irrational to target mass shootings because statistically it is a small percent. But for someone who lost a loved one it is rational to want to focus on such instances. For them if some new regulation saved a few dozen lives around the country then it was worth it in their eyes. You and I may not agree with that level of restriction but that doesn't mean it is irrational. They are looking for something they can do to prevent more loss of life and some of them base this off of actual things that would make a difference. The argument is rational but it is a freedom/right/privilege that we are not willing to give up in trade. We would have a lot fewer alcohol related deaths if the world gave up booze (a rational argument) but too many simply aren't willing to give up their love for alcohol.
A lot of people think we do not currently need protection from the government so they think arguments of firearms for protection from the government are irrational. We have two sides both pointing at each other claiming the other to be irrational, we shouldn't necessarily alienate people in the middle.
Okay, show me one fact-based study or demonstration that supports what you wrote.
Please, articulate the facts that support your conjecture about "at-15" bans saving lives.
(http://i.imgur.com/rMa5xeP.jpg)
-
I would also like to add that "high capacity pistols" are in fact factory capacity pistols, in most cases......
-
Thanks for posting the link, PP.
I read the article and, in my opinion, the title of the article is kind of misleading.
The first portion refers to the National Victims Action Council's call to restrict (ban) the $27,500.00, technologically-advanced TrackingPoint PGF.
The second portion refers to CeaseFire PA's call for increased restrictions on ALL long guns, following the shooting of two state troopers by an individual using a .308 rifle (the article does not specifically identify a bolt-action).
Granted, the article does highlight continued efforts to further restrict firearm ownership.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HsGZN5Qs3mU/VB7Ux7jT4iI/AAAAAAAAcKs/pzu2JBsoQGc/s1600/SNIPERolegvolk.JPG)
-
I know that comparing our current regime to the Nazi's is considered "poor form" but the parallels are just too much......
-
Okay, show me one fact-based study or demonstration that supports what you wrote.
Please, articulate the facts that support your conjecture about "at-15" bans saving lives.
I don't need a study to prove that an at-15 with a 100rd mag is much more effective at shooting multiple targets quickly than a 5 round bolt action rifle. If someone went on a killing spree and all things were equal except for the firearm, the person with high capacity and high rate of fire would be able to kill or wound more people. We can say that it is not worth the restriction of our rights but it is a rational conclusion.
-
I don't need a study to prove that an at-15 with a 100rd mag is much more effective at shooting multiple targets quickly than a 5 round bolt action rifle. If someone went on a killing spree and all things were equal except for the firearm, the person with high capacity and high rate of fire would be able to kill or wound more people. We can say that it is not worth the restriction of our rights but it is a rational conclusion.
The problem is not the type of weapon used to cause the havoc. The problem is why are all these people going on killing sprees? This is why the argument is not rational. Many millions of people own semi automatic rifles and firearms, also many millions of people own automobiles. Many many more die from negligent operation of automobiles than semiautomatic firearms. A not too distant instance, a man in Guam used his car (and knife) to kill people in downtown Hagatna (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140804_Guam_man_found_guilty_of_killing_tourists_in_rampage.html?id=269834651), Yet no outcry to regulate cars and drivers more than what is already done, no cries to ban automobiles....
The real problem is currently being either covered up or overlooked by popular culture. The real question is why are all these people going nuts? What is the common factor in these cases of mass killing? Until the real culprit is seriously investigated the problem will occur over and over regardless of "evil black rifle" bans.
Banning the tool of the evil is thereby irrational. Just because more people can be killed doesn't make it a rational argument.
-
Speedtek voted for BO
-
I don't need a study to prove that an at-15 with a 100rd mag is much more effective at shooting multiple targets quickly than a 5 round bolt action rifle. If someone went on a killing spree and all things were equal except for the firearm, the person with high capacity and high rate of fire would be able to kill or wound more people. We can say that it is not worth the restriction of our rights but it is a rational conclusion.
Sorry, but that's a dodge. If you can't answer the question, then you have no logical basis upon which your "beliefs" can be supported.
Without facts, all you have are theories, beliefs, and myths.
Let me demonstrate what rational conclusions based on facts actually look like...
Based on the gun violence study ordered by President Obama in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, the CDC reported the following:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
A rational conclusion of these numbers is that banning all defensive firearms for private citizens would create at least 500,000 to more than 3 million more deaths or injuries inflicted on the victims of crimes each year. While the number of deaths through gun violence each year is put at bout 9,000 to 13,000, that number is dwarfed by the magnitude of the incidents of self defense with a firearm. Based solely on these numbers, if you are for banning guns and CCW, then you must also be pro-crime and anti-victim.
the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
A rational conclusion here would be that focusing on mass shootings and attempting to find ways to stop them will not significantly impact gun violence at all. The media, politicians, and gun control advocates use these horrific events to elicit an emotional response specifically because there were 3 or more people killed in a single shooting spree with school shootings specifically involving more child victims. Numerically, if these events were somehow 100% preventable for this day forward, the number of lives saved would be statistically insignificant.
Said the CDC back in 2003, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws":
Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.
A rational conclusion here is that banning specific types of weapons, ammunition or accessories (> 10 rd magazines) does nothing to limit OR INCREASE the number of crimes, body count, or any other factor associated with gun violence.
FACT: No matter what capacity magazine you select as the limit, it will have little to no effect on safety. For every limit size you pick, I can still carry 200+ rounds of ammo ready to load in 2-4 seconds by simply buying the necessary number of magazines.
30 rds x 7 mags = 210 rds
20 rds x 10 mags = 200 rds
10 rds x 20 mags = 200 rds
A mag change takes a couple of seconds. A pouch full of loaded LEGAL magazines is just as deadly as one big mag. In fact, the 100 rd mag you mentioned is way more likely to jam than a bunch of smaller ones, just as it dd at the Aurora Theater shooting.
The Virgina Tech shooter used 2 handguns having 15rd and 10rd mags. He paused, basically splitting the spree into two separate shootings. That would have been time to reload his mags if he found he'd emptied them all. This school shooting has the record for the most number of people killed and injured. He did not use any of the weapons you are arguing against. Therefore, again based on these facts, a rational conclusion would be that banning any particular types of guns will have no effect on school shootings in terms of casualty count because the guns and magazines being targeted in these bans are not the guns proven to be the most effective. Without a direct causal relationship having been established between magazine capacity, type of gun/s used, and the casualty count in mass shootings, attempting to ban AR-15 and AK-47 semi-auto rifles will have no predictable reduction in casualties.
-
Not my point.
My point is that there are a lot of individuals who want some types of firearms banned but not all firearms banned. This is in contrast to the claim that everyone on the pro gun control side wants to ban any and all firearms.
I think we do ourselves a disservice if we misrepresent our opponents so greatly.
And usually those that want "some" firearms banned base those desires on misinformation or misunderstandings...such as relating Constitutional protections to hunting concerns, or believing that the police have some duty to protect you (the all too common reason such advocates suggest guns should only be available to police or military personnel...)....
-
And usually those that want "some" firearms banned base those desires on misinformation or misunderstandings...such as relating Constitutional protections to hunting concerns, or believing that the police have some duty to protect you (the all too common reason such advocates suggest guns should only be available to police or military personnel...)....
I have certainly met individuals who do not fit that stereotype. It would be interesting to see actual statistics but that would be a fairly technical study that I doubt someone has done.
-
The problem is not the type of weapon used to cause the havoc. The problem is why are all these people going on killing sprees? This is why the argument is not rational. Many millions of people own semi automatic rifles and firearms, also many millions of people own automobiles. Many many more die from negligent operation of automobiles than semiautomatic firearms. A not too distant instance, a man in Guam used his car (and knife) to kill people in downtown Hagatna (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140804_Guam_man_found_guilty_of_killing_tourists_in_rampage.html?id=269834651), Yet no outcry to regulate cars and drivers more than what is already done, no cries to ban automobiles....
The real problem is currently being either covered up or overlooked by popular culture. The real question is why are all these people going nuts? What is the common factor in these cases of mass killing? Until the real culprit is seriously investigated the problem will occur over and over regardless of "evil black rifle" bans.
Banning the tool of the evil is thereby irrational. Just because more people can be killed doesn't make it a rational argument.
I agree that the bigger more important question is why are these people going crazy and getting violent. However addressing the means used is attempting to address the issue, just from a different direction. I don't think it is irrational, it is just an easier answer than trying to figure out how to predict crazy people's violence.
Firearms make mass killings easier from the data that I have seen. Japan and other countries without firearms still have incidents of crazy people going on a rampage but statistically speaking fewer people actually die because the firearm is much quicker and more efficient at such a task. This is why firearms are an obvious target because the data supports the use of firearms to more people dying in such attacks. Again that is not irrational. I agree it isn't the best thing we could do to address the problem though.
Bottom line for me is this: We have opponents in life and we will get farther when we don't attack them as stupid. We are more likely to make progress by not alienating them. What may seem irrational to us may seem rational to them but if they are on the defense then they are less likely to consider our facts and arguments. I have to deal with a lot of unhappy customers at my job and 99% of the time being calm and nice gets more than arguing and insulting. I do not feel like spending more time summarizing gun control arguments in ways that seem rational, merely wanted to support my position that they do have some good arguments and we should treat them with respect even if we disagree.
-
Sorry, but that's a dodge. If you can't answer the question, then you have no logical basis upon which your "beliefs" can be supported.
Someone comes to your work or school and starts shooting randomly, would you rather him have an AK47 with 100 round drum or a 5 shot bolt action rifle with 95 more rounds in his pocket?
I will take my chances against the bolt action guy every time. Now don't get me wrong, you make fine points, but I am just explaining that there is a sane line of reasoning behind the argument, thus we don't need to insult our opponents as being all irrational. As I stated in the reply above this one I think we stand to get father by not being insulting.
-
I'd rather have option C. CCW.
-
Someone comes to your work or school and starts shooting randomly, would you rather him have an AK47 with 100 round drum or a 5 shot bolt action rifle with 95 more rounds in his pocket?
I will take my chances against the bolt action guy every time. Now don't get me wrong, you make fine points, but I am just explaining that there is a sane line of reasoning behind the argument, thus we don't need to insult our opponents as being all irrational. As I stated in the reply above this one I think we stand to get father by not being insulting.
Apples and oranges. You might as well compare an AR-15 with a muzzle-loading musket if you want to try and make an unfair comparison!!
You can't compare a bolt action to a semi-auto. Although, many bolt action rifles have magazines that can hold 5 or more rounds. You just have to cycle the action manually which will slow the rate of fire, but not necessarily enough to greatly reduce casualties in a large crowd.
The shooter could have a semi-auto hunting rile, semi-auto shotgun, and/or semi-auto pistol.
It does not matter if he chooses a semi-auto AK-47, semi-auto AR-15, semi-auto Browning BAR ShortTrac in .308, semi-auto Remington .750 Woodsmaster, or a semi-auto Browning BAR Safari in .338 Win.
They are all auto loaders and can be quickly reloaded using detachable magazines.
Since your question is about my preference, if I could pick any capable firearm for an active shooter scenario (being on the side of the target), I'd rather he have an AR with a 100rd magazine. Of all the choices I can imagine, that one has the greatest chance to malfunction.
Of course that's just me ... using probabilities instead of emotion to give an opinion.
Now, for the real lesson: you cannot uninvent anything. Magazines that hold > 10 rds exist. If we make them illegal and ban them from civilians, do you actually think the guy walking into a school to commit mass murder will care about firearms laws? Do you believe banning them makes them unobtainable?
Maybe we should try banning alcohol, opium, and other products that can be abused?? :wacko:
-
I'd rather have option C. CCW.
We all would but that is dodging the intent of the question.
-
Apples and oranges. You might as well compare an AR-15 with a muzzle-loading musket if you want to try and make an unfair comparison!!
You can't compare a bolt action to a semi-auto. Although, many bolt action rifles have magazines that can hold 5 or more rounds. You just have to cycle the action manually which will slow the rate of fire, but not necessarily enough to greatly reduce casualties in a large crowd.
The shooter could have a semi-auto hunting rile, semi-auto shotgun, and/or semi-auto pistol.
It does not matter if he chooses a semi-auto AK-47, semi-auto AR-15, semi-auto Browning BAR ShortTrac in .308, semi-auto Remington .750 Woodsmaster, or a semi-auto Browning BAR Safari in .338 Win.
They are all auto loaders and can be quickly reloaded using detachable magazines.
Since your question is about my preference, if I could pick any capable firearm for an active shooter scenario (being on the side of the target), I'd rather he have an AR with a 100rd magazine. Of all the choices I can imagine, that one has the greatest chance to malfunction.
Of course that's just me ... using probabilities instead of emotion to give an opinion.
Now, for the real lesson: you cannot uninvent anything. Magazines that hold > 10 rds exist. If we make them illegal and ban them from civilians, do you actually think the guy walking into a school to commit mass murder will care about firearms laws? Do you believe banning them makes them unobtainable?
Maybe we should try banning alcohol, opium, and other products that can be abused?? :wacko:
Don't get hung up on the specific gun used in question, any number of guns could be used in that scenario and remained valid.
I specifically didn't mention muskets because they don't fit with the heart of the argument for people who think hunting rifles are ok. Thus a bolt action or even lever action are most applicable since they are guns that the moderates have no issue with.
Really, you would choose to have someone shooting at you do so with an AR15 rather than a bolt action on the off chance that he might hit a jam? Come on now, you can't be serious, or would you prefer a derringer for self defense since a semi auto pistol has more moving parts to go wrong?
Personally I don't think mag size limits would do much to address the problem. Rather I suppose a more effective proposal would be to ban firearms that can be reloaded quickly so I don't put any weight on the mag size restriction arguments.
-
The argument of being shot at with a bolt action vs. an AR-15 is irrelevant to me. It's sort of like saying would I rather be run over by a golf cart or an SUV or would I rather get shot with a 45 or a 22.. If in that type of situation I think everyone would choose the whatever they feel they have the best chances of surviving.
To make legislative decisions that infringe on the law-abiding's ability to effectively defend themselves based on a bad or worse scenario without taking into consideration other alternatives (such as CCW or armed guards) does not make any sense to me. It does seem like a manipulative way to control the argument.
Bottom line for me is an tool effective tool for war is also an effective tool for defense and peace. Anything less would mean the lawless will always be more effective than the law abiding.
-
Don't get hung up on the specific gun used in question, any number of guns could be used in that scenario and remained valid.
I specifically didn't mention muskets because they don't fit with the heart of the argument for people who think hunting rifles are ok. Thus a bolt action or even lever action are most applicable since they are guns that the moderates have no issue with.
Really, you would choose to have someone shooting at you do so with an AR15 rather than a bolt action on the off chance that he might hit a jam? Come on now, you can't be serious, or would you prefer a derringer for self defense since a semi auto pistol has more moving parts to go wrong?
Personally I don't think mag size limits would do much to address the problem. Rather I suppose a more effective proposal would be to ban firearms that can be reloaded quickly so I don't put any weight on the mag size restriction arguments.
Why do you want to keep more effective weapons out of the hands of people trying to arm themselves for self defense?
Whatever you do to make guns "safer" only serves to make the gun less effective for self defense.
You can't make bad people harmless by making good people more helpless.
How about we make cars safer by putting speed governors on all new vehicles. No more driving over 35 MPH. It will save so many lives and so much gas!!
How can anyone argue against driving 35? It's just common sense, since most fatal accidents happen over 45 MPH. Think of the children!
-
The argument of being shot at with a bolt action vs. an AR-15 is irrelevant to me. It's sort of like saying would I rather be run over by a golf cart or an SUV or would I rather get shot with a 45 or a 22.. If in that type of situation I think everyone would choose the whatever they feel they have the best chances of surviving.
To make legislative decisions that infringe on the law-abiding's ability to effectively defend themselves based on a bad or worse scenario without taking into consideration other alternatives (such as CCW or armed guards) does not make any sense to me. It does seem like a manipulative way to control the argument.
Bottom line for me is an tool effective tool for war is also an effective tool for defense and peace. Anything less would mean the lawless will always be more effective than the law abiding.
I suspect many would think that CCW would not be effective, or that the firearm would end up being misused more often than it would be used to stop a crazed shooter. For example it might get stolen more often or used in a case of anger, etc.
I think they would fear a wild west type situation where everyone had guns and always ended up shooting at each other if everyone had CCW. I don't know if that would happen but I do think there is more to a peaceful society than everyone having a firearm. Certainly there are countries where firearm ownership is common and yet violence is high. There are some other factors at work that would be vital to an armed but peaceful society.
I am just trying to show that there is a sane line of reasoning behind some of their arguments. I do not want to rehash all their arguments and piece them out and try to suppose what they might say, I am not going to debate their debate for them, I just recognize a certain sanity in their arguments even though I may disagree. I know moderates who have rational opinions on gun control and I can respect their position as an intelligent one even though I arrive at a different conclusion.
-
Why do you want to keep more effective weapons out of the hands of people trying to arm themselves for self defense?
Whatever you do to make guns "safer" only serves to make the gun less effective for self defense.
You can't make bad people harmless by making good people more helpless.
How about we make cars safer by putting speed governors on all new vehicles. No more driving over 35 MPH. It will save so many lives and so much gas!!
How can anyone argue against driving 35? It's just common sense, since most fatal accidents happen over 45 MPH. Think of the children!
The line of reasoning is to keep that type of firearm out of the hands of everyone. A large portion of people who go on shooting rampages got their guns legally and up until the point where they started shooting they were not criminals but just good people. The kid who shot up the elementary school was a good responsible gun owner until he went out and murdered someone. Now it is true that the black market would still get some people those types of guns in the event that they were made illegal, but if the guns were outlawed it would be much harder to get. The responsible gun owner who goes on a shooting rampage wouldn't have one handy, the guy who burglarizes houses and sells the firearm wouldn't be able to get them because most homeowners wouldn't have the illegal gun, etc.
Banning it won't prevent the guns from getting on the illegal market but it would reduce the number available. That is the line of reasoning and there is a certain logic to it. Now you can disagree saying that it impedes on a freedom but that doesn't mean their argument isn't based on a logical line of reasoning.
-
The line of reasoning is to keep that type of firearm out of the hands of everyone. A large portion of people who go on shooting rampages got their guns legally and up until the point where they started shooting they were not criminals but just good people. The kid who shot up the elementary school was a good responsible gun owner until he went out and murdered someone. Now it is true that the black market would still get some people those types of guns in the event that they were made illegal, but if the guns were outlawed it would be much harder to get. The responsible gun owner who goes on a shooting rampage wouldn't have one handy, the guy who burglarizes houses and sells the firearm wouldn't be able to get them because most homeowners wouldn't have the illegal gun, etc.
Banning it won't prevent the guns from getting on the illegal market but it would reduce the number available. That is the line of reasoning and there is a certain logic to it. Now you can disagree saying that it impedes on a freedom but that doesn't mean their argument isn't based on a logical line of reasoning.
You might want to recheck your stated facts: "The kid who shot up the elementary school was a good responsible gun owner until he went out and murdered someone"
If you are referring to Adam Lanza, he owned zero guns. The guns belonged to his mother. In fact, he tried to buy a rifle just a few days prior to the shooting, but he didn't, because he was unwilling to wait the required 14 days before taking the gun home.
So, if that's one of your main examples, it fails to support your hypothesis that "A large portion of people who go on shooting rampages got their guns legally and up until the point where they started shooting they were not criminals but just good people."
So far, you haven't addressed the fact that the most horrific school shooting involved two handguns. This supports the opposing conclusion that, no matter what guns are legal to own, people who decide to go on a rampage will have the means to kill large numbers in a short time. .. AR-15 or AK-47 not required!
Hence, banning specific assault-type weapons will have no effect on the outcome of mass shootings. This finding was documented by the CDC based on the impact of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. No decrease, nor increase, in mass shootings nor the number of casualties could be correlated to the ban.
If you can't wrap your head around reality and insist on using hypothetical and what you think is "logical" results of bans, then there is little reason to further discuss this. The bans have been tried, and the bans proved they have no impact on gun crime -- good or bad. Bans are ineffective, and they should therefore be off the table when discussing what measures will actually help solve violence in general, not just gun violence.
-
The problem is not the type of weapon used to cause the havoc. The problem is why are all these people going on killing sprees? This is why the argument is not rational. Many millions of people own semi automatic rifles and firearms, also many millions of people own automobiles. Many many more die from negligent operation of automobiles than semiautomatic firearms. A not too distant instance, a man in Guam used his car (and knife) to kill people in downtown Hagatna (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140804_Guam_man_found_guilty_of_killing_tourists_in_rampage.html?id=269834651), Yet no outcry to regulate cars and drivers more than what is already done, no cries to ban automobiles....
The real problem is currently being either covered up or overlooked by popular culture. The real question is why are all these people going nuts? What is the common factor in these cases of mass killing? Until the real culprit is seriously investigated the problem will occur over and over regardless of "evil black rifle" bans.
Banning the tool of the evil is thereby irrational. Just because more people can be killed doesn't make it a rational argument.
-
I suspect many would think that CCW would not be effective, or that the firearm would end up being misused more often than it would be used to stop a crazed shooter. For example it might get stolen more often or used in a case of anger, etc.
I think they would fear a wild west type situation where everyone had guns and always ended up shooting at each other if everyone had CCW. I don't know if that would happen but I do think there is more to a peaceful society than everyone having a firearm. Certainly there are countries where firearm ownership is common and yet violence is high. There are some other factors at work that would be vital to an armed but peaceful society.
I am just trying to show that there is a sane line of reasoning behind some of their arguments. I do not want to rehash all their arguments and piece them out and try to suppose what they might say, I am not going to debate their debate for them, I just recognize a certain sanity in their arguments even though I may disagree. I know moderates who have rational opinions on gun control and I can respect their position as an intelligent one even though I arrive at a different conclusion.
Have you ever visited this site? http://gunssavelives.net/ (http://gunssavelives.net/) CCW is very effective.
As for the "wild west" argument. CCW is on the rise drastically
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/. (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/.)
Yet gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware)
The reasoning is not sane as it is not backed up by facts. Their reasoning is backed up by assumptions. If they want to hold that position that's fine, they have every right to but they cannot tell me it's a logical position when it's based on assumptions and not fact. Their position then becomes and emotional position.
-
You might want to recheck your stated facts: "The kid who shot up the elementary school was a good responsible gun owner until he went out and murdered someone"
If you are referring to Adam Lanza, he owned zero guns. The guns belonged to his mother. In fact, he tried to buy a rifle just a few days prior to the shooting, but he didn't, because he was unwilling to wait the required 14 days before taking the gun home.
So, if that's one of your main examples, it fails to support your hypothesis that "A large portion of people who go on shooting rampages got their guns legally and up until the point where they started shooting they were not criminals but just good people."
So far, you haven't addressed the fact that the most horrific school shooting involved two handguns. This supports the opposing conclusion that, no matter what guns are legal to own, people who decide to go on a rampage will have the means to kill large numbers in a short time. .. AR-15 or AK-47 not required!
Hence, banning specific assault-type weapons will have no effect on the outcome of mass shootings. This finding was documented by the CDC based on the impact of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. No decrease, nor increase, in mass shootings nor the number of casualties could be correlated to the ban.
If you can't wrap your head around reality and insist on using hypothetical and what you think is "logical" results of bans, then there is little reason to further discuss this. The bans have been tried, and the bans proved they have no impact on gun crime -- good or bad. Bans are ineffective, and they should therefore be off the table when discussing what measures will actually help solve violence in general, not just gun violence.
My mistake, I meant gun user. Lanza apparently had regular use of the firearms owned by his mother.
According to this, the vast majority of mass shootings involved legally obtained firearms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/)
And it is not about me wrapping my head around it, remember that I am merely trying to summarize the other side's arguments, or at least the few of them that are based on a rational line of thinking. The gun control advocates do have a few good arguments and statistics on their side but most of us here recognize the need to balance that against the rights in the constitution. It doesn't mean we need to make fun of anyone who supports some form of gun control.
-
Have you ever visited this site? http://gunssavelives.net/ (http://gunssavelives.net/) CCW is very effective.
As for the "wild west" argument. CCW is on the rise drastically
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/. (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/.)
Yet gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware)
The reasoning is not sane as it is not backed up by facts. Their reasoning is backed up by assumptions. If they want to hold that position that's fine, they have every right to but they cannot tell me it's a logical position when it's based on assumptions and not fact. Their position then becomes and emotional position.
Indeed, CCW saves a lot of people every year however according to this "After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)
There has been a big crime drop since the 90's but according to the researchers in Freakanomics, the largest factor in that appears to be the legalization of abortion in the 70s. I would be hesitant to suggest the violent crime rate drop was due to an increase in CCW.
-
My mistake, I meant gun user. Lanza apparently had regular use of the firearms owned by his mother.
According to this, the vast majority of mass shootings involved legally obtained firearms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/)
And it is not about me wrapping my head around it, remember that I am merely trying to summarize the other side's arguments, or at least the few of them that are based on a rational line of thinking. The gun control advocates do have a few good arguments and statistics on their side but most of us here recognize the need to balance that against the rights in the constitution. It doesn't mean we need to make fun of anyone who supports some form of gun control.
No matter how many times you use the word "rational", it doesn't make the argument for gun control rational. Gun control is not about gun violence. It is about people wanting to FEEL safer. Even when the crime and self defense numbers prove stricter gun laws do not solve violence, the agenda stays the same. Why? Because FEELING SAFER is an EMOTIONAL OBJECTIVE, and gun control is all about "doing something so people feel safer."
Pure emotion. Not rational. Maybe you are confusing "rational" and "rationalized"
(http://i.imgur.com/B0qli9j.jpg)
ra·tion·al
ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/
adjective
adjective: rational
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious, shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent;
down-to-earth, practical, pragmatic
ra·tion·al·ize
ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
verb
verb: rationalize; 3rd person present: rationalizes; past tense: rationalized; past participle: rationalized; gerund or present participle: rationalizing; verb: rationalise; 3rd person present: rationalises; past tense: rationalised; past participle: rationalised; gerund or present participle: rationalising
1.
attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.
"she couldn't rationalize her urge to return to the cottage"
synonyms: justify, explain, explain away, account for, defend, vindicate, excuse
"he tried to rationalize his behavior"
-
I'd be hesitant to suggest violent crime rate drop was due to the legalization of abortion 20 years prior to the start of the decline of not just any crime but gun crimes.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/)
As for the Harvard study..... Here are some undisputed facts.
1. Crime rate is as a whole is dropping. Homicide Rate is dropping.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0219/FBI-reports-a-drop-in-crime-in-2013-why-the-rate-continues-to-fall (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0219/FBI-reports-a-drop-in-crime-in-2013-why-the-rate-continues-to-fall)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/)
2. More CCW than ever before.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/#.VCSvTPldVPM (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/#.VCSvTPldVPM)
Now has CCW caused the crime rate to drop? Maybe, maybe not, but it has not caused it to increase.
Indeed, CCW saves a lot of people every year however according to this "After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)
There has been a big crime drop since the 90's but according to the researchers in Freakanomics, the largest factor in that appears to be the legalization of abortion in the 70s. I would be hesitant to suggest the violent crime rate drop was due to an increase in CCW.
-
I'd be hesitant to suggest violent crime rate drop was due to the legalization of abortion 20 years prior to the start of the decline of not just any crime but gun crimes.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/)
As for the Harvard study..... Here are some undisputed facts.
1. Crime rate is as a whole is dropping. Homicide Rate is dropping.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0219/FBI-reports-a-drop-in-crime-in-2013-why-the-rate-continues-to-fall (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0219/FBI-reports-a-drop-in-crime-in-2013-why-the-rate-continues-to-fall)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/)
2. More CCW than ever before.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/#.VCSvTPldVPM (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/#.VCSvTPldVPM)
Now has CCW caused the crime rate to drop? Maybe, maybe not, but it has not caused it to increase.
I don't doubt that the homicide rate is dropping, I am just saying that I haven't seen proof that CCW played a significant role in that drop. It would be very interesting to see what happens to Hawaii's crime rate if CCW were allowed.
As for the claim in freakanomics being disproven I am not so sure the article does it for me. I am not saying they are wrong but the source does have a bias to them and the piece appears to be written as an editorial. On top of that one of the links citing another study that supposedly showed legalized abortion causing higher crime was not even working. Now it may be true that the science done by the freakanomics guys is flawed somehow but I wouldn't consider it disproven just because some other expert claims differently. It really would require a more in depth analysis of the freakanomics data and that used by those contesting the claim. Not something I feel like reading into at this moment so I think I will just leave that issue as unsure for now. To be clear I am not a pro-choicer.
-
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/popcorn_yes.gif)
-
No matter how many times you use the word "rational", it doesn't make the argument for gun control rational. Gun control is not about gun violence. It is about people wanting to FEEL safer. Even when the crime and self defense numbers prove stricter gun laws do not solve violence, the agenda stays the same. Why? Because FEELING SAFER is an EMOTIONAL OBJECTIVE, and gun control is all about "doing something so people feel safer."
Pure emotion. Not rational. Maybe you are confusing "rational" and "rationalized"
Gun control can take a dozen different forms. It can be purely irrational or it can be rational, it depends on the means in question. You cannot paint them all with a single brush.
Now to take one of the extreme arguments, we don't allow people to own nuclear weapons even though some interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that civilians can own any weapon that the government owns. We all draw the line somewhere but not necessarily in the same place.
Some forms of gun control do have a statistical basis. Places where guns are heavily regulated, such as the UK, have much lower gun death rates. That is a rational argument used by some gun control advocates. A good debater has to realize when the opposing side makes a decent argument. Now I fully agree there is a lot of emotional knee jerk reaction in the gun control crowd that is not supported by data, but some of them do make rational arguments based on data.
-
Gun control can take a dozen different forms. It can be purely irrational or it can be rational, it depends on the means in question. You cannot paint them all with a single brush.
Now to take one of the extreme arguments, we don't allow people to own nuclear weapons even though some interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that civilians can own any weapon that the government owns. We all draw the line somewhere but not necessarily in the same place.
Some forms of gun control do have a statistical basis. Places where guns are heavily regulated, such as the UK, have much lower gun death rates. That is a rational argument used by some gun control advocates. A good debater has to realize when the opposing side makes a decent argument. Now I fully agree there is a lot of emotional knee jerk reaction in the gun control crowd that is not supported by data, but some of them do make rational arguments based on data.
Please read, then re-read.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/25/how-bloombergs-million-dollar-desire-for-gun-control-is-backfiring/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/25/how-bloombergs-million-dollar-desire-for-gun-control-is-backfiring/)
-
I don't doubt that the homicide rate is dropping, I am just saying that I haven't seen proof that CCW played a significant role in that drop. It would be very interesting to see what happens to Hawaii's crime rate if CCW were allowed.
As for the claim in freakanomics being disproven I am not so sure the article does it for me. I am not saying they are wrong but the source does have a bias to them and the piece appears to be written as an editorial. On top of that one of the links citing another study that supposedly showed legalized abortion causing higher crime was not even working. Now it may be true that the science done by the freakanomics guys is flawed somehow but I wouldn't consider it disproven just because some other expert claims differently. It really would require a more in depth analysis of the freakanomics data and that used by those contesting the claim. Not something I feel like reading into at this moment so I think I will just leave that issue as unsure for now. To be clear I am not a pro-choicer.
How much proof do you need?
The city of Chicago registered more homicides than any city in the nation in 2012, surpassing even New York — despite the fact that the Second City has only one third as many residents as the Big Apple.
In new crime statistics released Monday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 500 murders in Chicago in 2012, up sharply from the 431 recorded in 2011. New York reported 419 murders last year, compared with 515 in 2011.
On September 12, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled a law passed in Illinois which effectively banned carrying a loaded weapon violated the Second Amendment and struck it down. In January, the Illinois State Police began issuing concealed carry licenses.
When new crime statistics were released covering the first quarter of 2014 an amazing thing happened:
Chicago’s first-quarter murder total this year hit its lowest number since 1958, police say.
The first three months of the year saw 6 fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a 9 percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, according to a statement from Chicago Police.
Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., economist John Lott and David Mustard concluded, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”
http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/04/chicagos-murder-rate-plummets-concealed-carry-law/ (http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/04/chicagos-murder-rate-plummets-concealed-carry-law/)
So, unless you have facts to dispute the statistics, data, and conclusions presented in this article and the studies it refers to, you have to admit, this is PROOF that there is a causal relationship between CCW and lower crime rates.
You should also be aware that most self defense uses of guns don't involve actually discharging the weapon, and are therefore unreported and difficult to count. So the figures presented are VERY conservative and err on the side of "known" data.
-
Please read, then re-read.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/25/how-bloombergs-million-dollar-desire-for-gun-control-is-backfiring/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/25/how-bloombergs-million-dollar-desire-for-gun-control-is-backfiring/)
Read it, very good article. Proves there is a lot of fluff and misinformation, I have never disagreed with this, I merely said that there are individuals who are in the middle in the gun control debate who do base their positions intelligently and not knee jerk reactions and misinformation. The article doesn't prove that such people don't exist.
-
How much proof do you need?
http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/04/chicagos-murder-rate-plummets-concealed-carry-law/ (http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/04/chicagos-murder-rate-plummets-concealed-carry-law/)
So, unless you have facts to dispute the statistics, data, and conclusions presented in this article and the studies it refers to, you have to admit, this is PROOF that there is a causal relationship between CCW and lower crime rates.
You should also be aware that most self defense uses of guns don't involve actually discharging the weapon, and are therefore unreported and difficult to count. So the figures presented are VERY conservative and err on the side of "known" data.
I agree there is no data showing CCW has caused an increase in crime, but the correlation of a decrease in crime and the increase in CCW does not prove causation. There are a number of other factors that may or may not be impacting those numbers such as economy, social changes, etc. You would need more in-depth study to determine what role an increase in CCW played and how much of a role it played to prove causation. I suspect that it does play at least some role and the data supports that theory but does not prove it.
Jdelacruz recognized that the correlation does not prove causation on the previous page.
-
Read it, very good article. Proves there is a lot of fluff and misinformation, I have never disagreed with this, I merely said that there are individuals who are in the middle in the gun control debate who do base their positions intelligently and not knee jerk reactions and misinformation. The article doesn't prove that such people don't exist.
You still don't get it. Nobody is disputing the existence of the sheeple you refer to. We are pointing out that these people fall into a category of misinformed and uniformed.
Their positions are disproven by the actual facts. A rational and sane person would no longer hold those views.
If they decide to cling to their beliefs in the face of information to the contrary with no opposing information of their own, then they are deniers, and their positions are irrational.
-
I agree there is no data showing CCW has caused an increase in crime, but the correlation of a decrease in crime and the increase in CCW does not prove causation. There are a number of other factors that may or may not be impacting those numbers such as economy, social changes, etc. You would need more in-depth study to determine what role an increase in CCW played and how much of a role it played to prove causation. I suspect that it does play at least some role and the data supports that theory but does not prove it.
Jdelacruz recognized that the correlation does not prove causation on the previous page.
Your belief: the correlation of a decrease in crime and the increase in CCW does not prove causation.
The facts: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., economist John Lott and David Mustard concluded, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes"
If you're going to continue to challenge this fact, you better come up with something more than your words on a computer screen.
-
Yes, I think that there has been enough input from both sides, thank you for the impassioned debate.