Jump to content

Gun Control Discussion 2


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Having a central bank makes a State a communist country?  Doesn't that mean the  US, when the Federal Reserve was created, was simply returning to its original condition?  The First and Second "Banks of the United States" were the original US central banks.  They existed in the 18th and 19th Century.

Well, the charters of the first and second national banks ended. But I have no problem conceding that during the periods of national banks that preceded the Federal Reserve, the U.S. was quasi-communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic, this Vice documentary called "Inside America's Largest Right Wing Militia" seems to be just a few days old:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7rJstUseKg

It's everything you can expect it to be.
On the plus side, these nutjobs are super-prepared for the coming zombie apocalypse.

Edit: watched this one as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU9THDZ2S5k&feature=youtu.be

At 15:28: "There's always a possibility of anything happening. We live in a very strange world."
He's right, I can't disagree with him on that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the gun control crowd, you guys/gals are obviously intelligent; I know it, you know it, even Yellow Dog knows it (sorry, obscure movie reference).  Having said that, name calling and insults should be beneath you guys.  Gun control is a complex issue, with no absolute right answer.

On history, I think the Gatling gun may be more appropriate.  From what I’ve read, and I could be wrong, the GG was owned by private citizens before it was owned by the military.  The GG might be a better indication of “weapons of mass destruction”, and a better precursor to future weapons technology.

Harsher gun laws probably will prevent deaths; but guns can save lives too.  There is a better chance that I will protect my family with guns then I will go out and randomly shoot people.  It’s an impossible thing to study or predict, but are you guys okay with the deaths of people whose guns were taken away who never would have used them unlawfully?  Because it will happen.

And lastly, as someone said earlier, if in the U.S., the people are the government, then why would they not be allowed to bear arms.  How can elected officials, who represent the people (who are the government) take away a right laid down by the founders of the nation; who made sure the people are the government and they have a right to bear arms.

It sounds like some of you have more of a problem with “We the people …”, more so than the 2nd Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Harsher gun laws probably will prevent deaths; but guns can save lives too.  There is a better chance that I will protect my family with guns then I will go out and randomly shoot people.  

There's an even better chance than either that your gun will be used to kill or hurt someone in your household. 

4 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

It’s an impossible thing to study or predict, but are you guys okay with the deaths of people whose guns were taken away who never would have used them unlawfully?  Because it will happen.

It depends a lot on the tradeoff. Are you okay with the deaths of people who died because they were trapped by their seatbelt?

4 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

And lastly, as someone said earlier, if in the U.S., the people are the government, then why would they not be allowed to bear arms.  How can elected officials, who represent the people (who are the government) take away a right laid down by the founders of the nation; who made sure the people are the government and they have a right to bear arms.

For the same reason they can't carry around nuclear weapons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

...

Harsher gun laws probably will prevent deaths; but guns can save lives too.  There is a better chance that I will protect my family with guns then I will go out and randomly shoot people.  It’s an impossible thing to study or predict, but are you guys okay with the deaths of people whose guns were taken away who never would have used them unlawfully?  Because it will happen.

...

Statistically no, guns take more lives than they save. They are not the same lives though, which is part of why this discussion is difficult for many on an emotional level.

And I have to say, and I hope you are aware, there is statistically (not knowing you at all) a better chance that your guns will be used to hurt your family (even by you) than that you'll use it to protect them. And that is linked to the problem I mentioned above, few think they are in the group more likely to hurt their loved ones than to protect them. Even less so for gun owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2017 at 8:24 AM, Rippounet said:

My vote goes to the 3D-printer. I expect humanity to master much better sources of energy in the next decades than today's, and the 3D-printer progressively becoming close to a Star Trek replicator.

I can totally see that, now you mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

And lastly, as someone said earlier, if in the U.S., the people are the government, then why would they not be allowed to bear arms.  How can elected officials, who represent the people (who are the government) take away a right laid down by the founders of the nation...

You mean like the right to buy and sell people as property, or consider them only 3/5 of a person for census purposes? ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Indeed, there is only one political movement that I can think of that directly conflated communism and banking (by way of antisemitism...)

Oh dear... conflating banking with communism is antisemitic? How'd you figure? (Note that I made reference to just three banks.)

11 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

To the gun control crowd, you guys/gals are obviously intelligent; I know it, you know it, even Yellow Dog knows it (sorry, obscure movie reference).  Having said that, name calling and insults should be beneath you guys.  Gun control is a complex issue, with no absolute right answer.

Unfortunately, it's not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

To the gun control crowd, you guys/gals are obviously intelligent; I know it, you know it, even Yellow Dog knows it (sorry, obscure movie reference).  Having said that, name calling and insults should be beneath you guys.  Gun control is a complex issue, with no absolute right answer.

Actually, in any country that doesn't have a "right to bear arms" in its constitution, there pretty much is an absolute, correct, easy, and straightforward response to gun issues: regulation.
The issue only becomes "complex" if you consider that individual rights are at least as equally important as collective security, something which in itself has heavy ideological implications, and which anywhere else than the USA is described as some form of right-wing anarchism.
So every time this conversation pops up it focuses on the US and often sets aside just how bizarre American gun culture is to the rest of the developed world. The defense of the 2nd amendment (with its usual arguments about semantics or political philosophy) obscures the fact that almost no other developed country sees firearms as an individual right. A quick google search tells me that three countries in the entire world have such a provision in their constitution and that the two others (Guatemala and Mexico) copied the US.
My point is, non-Americans have little reason not to see gun aficionados as nutjobs. And sorry, but none of the arguments made in the last 30 pages have helped at all. Nor do the current arguments against gun control.

Take Bill O'Reilly:

Quote

The NRA and its supporters want easy access to weapons, while the left wants them banned. This is the price of freedom. Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are. The Second Amendment is clear that Americans have a right to arm themselves for protection. Even the loons [...].

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: sorry, as a non-American, I personally have no reason to show any particular respect to the 2nd amendment and its proponents. Such respect should be earned through actual conversation. Like, if you're not a nutjob, prove it. I'm tired of seeing the burden of proof systematically be on the gun control crowd just because "America, fuck yeah!".

And on a lighter note, here's a crazy idea that might even work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0UUrMmoPME

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Actually, in any country that doesn't have a "right to bear arms" in its constitution, there pretty much is an absolute, correct, easy, and straightforward response to gun issues: regulation.

Except no thorough study has extracted sufficient evidence which suggests stringent controls and regulations have led to less death/violence.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The issue only becomes "complex" if you consider that individual rights are at least as equally important as collective security, something which in itself has heavy ideological implications, and which anywhere else than the USA is described as some form of right-wing anarchism.

There is no "collective security" without individual rights. The collective entity doesn't exist without the individuals who comprise them. Collective security is only a camouflage that attempts to justify subjugating individuals to the agendas of other individuals. "Right-wing anarchism" is a misnomer. Freedom is a more apt description.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So every time this conversation pops up it focuses on the US and often sets aside just how bizarre American gun culture is to the rest of the developed world. The defense of the 2nd amendment (with its usual arguments about semantics or political philosophy) obscures the fact that almost no other developed country sees firearms as an individual right.

What relevance does any other country have in this situation? Our laws should reflect their laws for what reason? The campaign for gun control in the U.S. is about the circumstances of the U.S. Arguing that we are not like other developed countries is not much of a criticism.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

My point is, non-Americans have little reason not to see gun aficionados as nutjobs. And sorry, but none of the arguments made in the last 30 pages have helped at all. Nor do the current arguments against gun control.

And you haven't demonstrated an understanding of what makes sense. Rather than make a counterargument, rebuttal or refutation, you'd rather just conclude that advocates of the second amendment are "nutjobs."

 

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: sorry, as a non-American, I personally have no reason to show any particular respect to the 2nd amendment and its proponents.

And you don't have to. I assure you that no one is losing sleep over it.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

 I'm tired of seeing the burden of proof systematically be on the gun control crowd just because "America, fuck yeah!".

"I'm tired" is not an argument. The burden of proof remains with the gun control crowd because they are the ones who assert that stringent regulations or bans will lead to fewer instances/acts of death/violence. It's not unreasonable to demand they prove their argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Oh dear... conflating banking with communism is antisemitic? How'd you figure? (Note that I made reference to just three banks.)

Unfortunately, it's not.

 

That's not what I said. My point was that there was one political movement in the past that combined those two positions because Marx was Jewish and so were many bankers. They were not particularly agreeable people, to say the least. I said nothing about the basis for your personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Except no thorough study has extracted sufficient evidence which suggests stringent controls and regulations have led to less death/violence.

For the third time:

Quote

Ruddell and Mays (55) using a scale to rate the state's ability to screen individuals found that more stringent background checks were associated with reductions in firearm homicides. Sumner et al. (56) wrote that local checks (as opposed to federal) for local mental health and court restraining records were associated with lower suicide rates, but not with homicide rates, among adults aged 21 years or older. [...]

La Valle (41), comparing 20 large cities in the United States by using UCR data (1990–2000), found that the Brady Act was associated with reductions in all and firearm homicide rates. [...]

Vigdor and Mercy (58, 59), using UCR data (1982–1998), found that states with laws preventing subjects with domestic violence restraining orders from owning/purchasing firearms had a 9% reduction in the rates of intimate partner, female intimate partner, and female intimate partner firearm homicides; however, there was no association between these outcomes and restrictions for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. Zeoli and Webster (60) also described similar findings using data from 46 of the largest cities in the United States (1979–2003). In addition, Rodríguez Andrés and Hempstead (61), using NCHS data from 1995 to 2004, found that purchasing restrictions for mental health issues and domestic violence convictions were associated with lower rates of male suicides in some age groups. Sen and Panjamapirom (62), using NCHS data from 1996 to 2005, found that, compared with states checking for criminal backgrounds only, there were lower homicide rates in states additionally checking for restraining orders and lower suicide rates in states also checking for mental conditions, fugitive status, and misdemeanors.

Particularly on laws regarding licensing of dealers, Kleck and Patterson (7) in a cross-sectional study found an association between these laws and reductions in homicide rates but not in suicide rates. Moreover, Irvin et al. (63), using NCHS data (1995–2010) in adjusted models, found that licensing requirements for dealers were associated with firearm homicide reductions. [...]

Interestingly, Webster et al. (67) examined the association between Missouri's 2007 repeal of the permit-to-purchase handgun law, which required all handgun purchasers to have a valid license to purchase handguns, and homicide rates. Using NCHS (1999–2010) and UCR (1999–2012) data, these authors found that repeal of the law was associated with a 25% increase in firearm homicide rates in Missouri.

In Switzerland, Reisch et al. (68) examined the association between the national army XXI reform and suicide rates; this reform reduced by half the number of active soldiers, increased the fee to purchase a military gun, and implemented license requirements for gun owners (Table 3). The overall suicide and firearm suicide rates were lower than predicted among males aged 18–43 years (targeted population), without changes among control groups (women aged 18–44 years and males aged 44–53 years). [...]

Webster et al. (66) found that child access prevention laws were associated with a reduction in all suicide and firearm suicide rates among individuals aged 14–17 years (8.3% and 10.8% reduction, respectively) and those aged 18–20 years (11% and 13%, respectively). Cummings et al. (70) observed a reduction of 19% in firearm suicides and 11% in firearm homicides among children aged 15 years or younger, almost reaching significance (95% confidence intervals: 0.66, 1.01 and 0.76, 1.05, respectively). [...]

Webster et al. (77) studied the 1988 Maryland law banning these firearms ["Saturday night specials"] in time-series analyses using 2 neighboring states as controls and NCHS data (1975–1998). These authors found the law was associated with a 6.8%–11.5% reduction in homicide rates when assuming a delayed effect model but not an immediate and constant model.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Why don't you just print out those studies, put them in a box, and have a friend repeatedly bash you over the head with them?  You'd likely learn more quickly the futility of trying to discuss this with someone completely uninterested in honest discourse, what eith the physical pain and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Why don't you just print out those studies, put them in a box, and have a friend repeatedly bash you over the head with them?  You'd likely learn more quickly the futility of trying to discuss this with someone completely uninterested in honest discourse, what eith the physical pain and all.

Sounds like a study in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

My point was that there was one political movement in the past that combined those two positions because Marx was Jewish and so were many bankers. They were not particularly agreeable people, to say the least. I said nothing about the basis for your personal opinion.

If not to insinuate my alleged antisemitism, why is this relevant?

54 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

And for the third time, you either don't read the entire study, or you purposefully obfuscate. The ... you left out was this:

Quote

Laws targeting firearm ownership

Two cross-sectional studies (7, 64) found that permits and licenses to purchase firearms were associated with lower rates of firearm suicides. In a longitudinal study using NCHS data (1970–1998), Marvell (65) found that laws restricting juvenile access to firearms were not associated with all or firearm homicide or suicide rates among youth. Studies using times-series analyses from Webster et al. (66) and Rosengart et al. (38) did not find evidence of reductions in firearm deaths associated with state and federal laws raising the legal age to 18 or 21 years for handgun purchases/possession. Rodríguez Andrés and Hempstead (61) in unadjusted models found that minimum age requirements were associated with fewer suicides among males.

Laws targeting firearms storage regulations

Regarding suicides and homicides, no clear association between child access prevention laws on these outcomes was observed by Lott and Whitley (73), who indicated that Poisson models suggested a decline in firearm suicides and an increment in homicides, or by Lott (47) (with homicides). In contrast, Webster et al. (66) found that child access prevention laws were associated with a reduction in all suicide and firearm suicide rates among individuals aged 14–17 years (8.3% and 10.8% reduction, respectively) and those aged 18–20 years (11% and 13%, respectively). Cummings et al. (70) observed a reduction of 19% in firearm suicides and 11% in firearm homicides among children aged 15 years or younger, almost reaching significance (95% confidence intervals: 0.66, 1.01 and 0.76, 1.05, respectively).

1994 Federal assault weapons ban, United States

This law banned the sales and ownership of semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines. Koper and Roth (76) using UCR data (1980–1995) found no association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states after adjusting for the presence of other firearm laws and crime laws in New York and California. A recent study by Gius (48) showed that the federal assault weapons ban was associated with higher rates of firearm homicides.

US Gun Control Act of 1968

This law restricted the sale of some handguns, blocked the importation of firearms not meeting specific criteria, prohibited the sale of firearms to buyers without state identification, implemented licenses for firearm sellers and for owners, and banned the possession/purchasing of firearms by high-risk-group individuals (Table 3). Magaddino and Medoff (96), using data for the period 1947–1977 in structural models adjusted by state characteristics, found that the law was not associated with changes in homicide rates.

This is just a composite, not an actual study. (It's also worthy of note that this composite conveys associations, not causation.) it's not surprising that you purposefully left out the parts I have in bold--probably another attempt to advance your sophistry.

Quote
38 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You'd likely learn more quickly the futility of trying to discuss this with someone completely uninterested in honest discourse, what eith the physical pain and all.

If you look above, you'll see that I'm not the one being "dishonest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Except no thorough study has extracted sufficient evidence which suggests stringent controls and regulations have led to less death/violence.

There is no "collective security" without individual rights. The collective entity doesn't exist without the individuals who comprise them. Collective security is only a camouflage that attempts to justify subjugating individuals to the agendas of other individuals. "Right-wing anarchism" is a misnomer. Freedom is a more apt description.

What relevance does any other country have in this situation? Our laws should reflect their laws for what reason? The campaign for gun control in the U.S. is about the circumstances of the U.S. Arguing that we are not like other developed countries is not much of a criticism.

And you haven't demonstrated an understanding of what makes sense. Rather than make a counterargument, rebuttal or refutation, you'd rather just conclude that advocates of the second amendment are "nutjobs."

 

And you don't have to. I assure you that no one is losing sleep over it.

"I'm tired" is not an argument. The burden of proof remains with the gun control crowd because they are the ones who assert that stringent regulations or bans will lead to fewer instances/acts of death/violence. It's not unreasonable to demand they prove their argument.

The unreasonable part seems to be where the evidence for gun control is unreasonably ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

it's not surprising that you purposefully left out the parts I have in bold--probably another attempt to advance your sophistry.

You contended "no thorough study has extracted sufficient evidence which suggests stringent controls and regulations have led to less death/violence."  In pointing out how thoroughly and laughably wrong you are in this, would seem pretty sensible to focus on citing the studies that do provide said evidence.

40 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

It's also worthy of note that this composite conveys associations, not causation.

Um, no shit.  There's effectively no way to "prove" causation with observational data, and you'll have a hard time convincing many that treatment effects in social science experiments are sufficient either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...