Suttree Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22gun+death%22+site%3Awesteros.orgFeel free to read as many as you have time for. :rolleyes: Really? This coming how many posts after you asked me to link the studies on a state level. Way to be a kook, if you have something in particular in mind feel free to provide it. I think this is rather more telling. That doesn't change the point the Harvard professor is making in the slightest. All the more reason why action needs to be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuseprime Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Listen fuseprime, I only followed your argument to its logical conclusion. You argue that responsible gun owners should object to smart guns because the criminals would just disable them any way, just like how they filed off serial numbers of current guns. So I ask you, as a responsible gun owner, have you filed off the serial numbers on your guns because the criminals are already doing that right now to their guns. If you haven't done that, then your objection to smart guns are gibberish bullshit. The same way the car companies went on board when federal mandate forced them to put seatbelts on all their car to be sold in the US. By making it an voluntary option for the first 5 years? The federal funds could come from higher taxes on bullets. :laugh: I don't file the serial numbers off of my guns because it's illegal to do so. I'm not a criminal. What a GPS system would do, is locate guns only own by people who are law-abiding gun owners anyway. There only one thing that adding a GPS tracker in guns will do: Causing the price of guns to go up. It's just another mechanism by the gun-control lobby to stem the growth in firearms ownership. That's all it will do. It will not save lives, or keep guns away from criminals, and that's the reason we're have this discussion in the first place. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean what I have to say is gibberish or bullshit. Forcing car companies to add seat belts in cars, does not mean that people will use them. By making what a voluntary option? I'm not following. Who's going to vote to raise taxes on ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuseprime Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-californias-gun-laws-have-worked-2013-8 That article is also misleading, because it factors suicide into the equation. Dr. Azrael, of Harvard, noted that the factors that were driving gun violence differed from state to state — in states like Montana and Idaho, for example, the rate of gun suicides greatly outstrips the rate of homicides committed with firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 That article is also misleading, because it factors suicide into the equation. Certainly a relevant metric for any study looking at gun violence no? The quote does say... “reinforces what we know from other studies, which is that the rate of exposure to firearms is associated with overall mortality.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I don't file the serial numbers off of my guns because it's illegal to do so. I'm not a criminal. What a GPS system would do, is locate guns only own by people who are law-abiding gun owners anyway. There only one thing that adding a GPS tracker in guns will do: Causing the price of guns to go up. It's just another mechanism by the gun-control lobby to stem the growth in firearms ownership. That's all it will do. It will not save lives, or keep guns away from criminals, and that's the reason we're have this discussion in the first place. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean what I have to say is gibberish or bullshit. Don't you realize how paranoid you sounds here, fuseprime? You have no proof and your arguments are self-contradictory. But thank you for answering the question. Forcing car companies to add seat belts in cars, does not mean that people will use them. That's fine. I'm cool with having seatbelts available and those who are caught while driving without seatbelts are penalized with a fine. By making what a voluntary option? I'm not following. Having tracking technologies on guns a voluntary options for 5 years for manufacturers ......... phase them in gradually. Who's going to vote to raise taxes on ammo? Me, and probably lots of other voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuseprime Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Certainly a relevant metric for any study looking at gun violence no? Perhaps, but suicide isn't the discussion here I thought. Don't you realize how paranoid you sounds here, fuseprime? You have no proof and your arguments are self-contradictory. But thank you for answering the question. Having tracking technologies on guns a voluntary options for 5 years for manufacturers ......... phase them in gradually. How are my arguments self-contradictory? Do you even know what you're talking about? It's Economics 101. If a company is obligated to add X to Y, then the price of Y goes up. Maybe in ladie dadie foo foo land, a company will eat the cost, but in America, the cost gets passed to the consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Perhaps, but suicide isn't the discussion here I thought. How are my arguments self-contradictory? Do you even know what you're talking about? It's Economics 101. If a company is obligated to add X to Y, then the price of Y goes up. Maybe in ladie dadie foo foo land, a company will eat the cost, but in America, the cost gets passed to the consumer. It's self contradictory because your main objection was that responsible gun owners will disable smart tracking on guns because that's what the criminals will do, just like how it happened with serial numbers on gun. You then now shift the goalpost to the cost argument because it turns out hey, responsible gun owners don't file off the serial numbers after all lol .............. well that's fine, let's look at the cost argument. Did you know there is a biometric grip made by a manufacturer call Kodiak that can be attached to firearms and locks the gun with a fingerprint scanner for $399. It's a cheap price to pay to render your guns useless if they ever get stolen. Did you also know that there are about 232,000 guns theft per year as reported by the Bureau of Justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuseprime Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 It's self contradictory because your main objection was that responsible gun owners will disable smart tracking on guns because that's what the criminals will do, just like how it happened with serial numbers on gun. You then now shift the goalpost to the cost argument because it turns out hey, responsible gun owners don't file off the serial numbers after all lol .............. well that's fine, let's look at the cost argument. Did you know there is a biometric grip made by a manufacturer call Kodiak that can be attached to firearms and locks the gun with a fingerprint scanner for $399. It's a cheap price to pay to render your guns useless if they ever get stolen. Did you also know that there are about 232,000 guns theft per year as reported by the Bureau of Justice? I never said that responsible gun-owners would remove trackers. I said criminals would remove them, just like they do with serial numbers. You're twisting my words around, again, in order to...what is it you're trying to prove here? Also, you have no idea what you're talking about, concerning the Intelligun. It's a grip. Grips are inter-changeable. For example, my 92FS had polymer grips. I changed them to wood grips. It's a really easy process. (3:00 minute mark). This grip is to make sure a child cannot set the gun off in the event they get a hold of it. Not to render them useless. If you want to have a discussion with me, that's fine. I have opposing views to people on this board on some issues, and completely agree with them on others. I would appreciate that you stop calling me names, and stop twisting my words around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I never said that responsible gun-owners would remove trackers. I said criminals would remove them, just like they do with serial numbers. You're twisting my words around, again, in order to...what is it you're trying to prove here? If you want to have a discussion with me, that's fine. I have opposing views to people on this board on some issues, and completely agree with them on others. I would appreciate that you stop calling me names, and stop twisting my words around. Lol, come on now fuseprime, stop it with this silly pretention. I will quote you, word for word: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/111279-americas-gun-culture-what-can-we-do/page-10#entry5863492 Do I object to a GPS chip in a firearm though? Absolutely. It's the same concept as having a registry. Law-abiding citizens will keep there's in, while criminals will remove them. Keep changing that goalpost though and pretend that you didn't wrote that. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 It's self contradictory because your main objection was that responsible gun owners will disable smart tracking on guns because that's what the criminals will do, just like how it happened with serial numbers on gun. To be fair to fuseprime, his quote is saying the opposite; that lawful gun owners will be the ones keeping the GPS chip in in accordance with the law, an therefore bearing any cost/risks associated with such, while a criminal with a stolen gun will simply remove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 To be fair to fuseprime, his quote is saying the opposite; that lawful gun owners will be the ones keeping the GPS chip in in accordance with the law, an therefore bearing any cost/risks associated with such, while a criminal with a stolen gun will simply remove it. Right ........ and don't you think that's a bizarre argument to make against the GPS chip? A responsible gun owner will not disable it, like with serial number, but the criminals definitely will. Therefore, I'm oppose to the gps chip because I'm a responsible gun owner and I will not disable it. Try to fathom the logic in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 To be fair to fuseprime, his quote is saying the opposite; that lawful gun owners will be the ones keeping the GPS chip in in accordance with the law, an therefore bearing any cost/risks associated with such, while a criminal with a stolen gun will simply remove it. And at that point making it relatively easy to discover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 And at that point making it relatively easy to discover. Yup. And hence I seriously question fuseprime's credibility given how he claims to be a responsible gun owner yet object to gps tracking add-on for guns because the criminals would just disable them. Why would that matter to responsible gun owners at all, what criminals would do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuseprime Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 And at that point making it relatively easy to discover. With the limited resources that are available to law enforcement, do you believe that a unit will immediately be dispatched to retrieve the firearm? Who's going to monitor the database? With the estimated 300 million firearms that are legally owned (not including illegal guns), I just don't see how this is a feasible option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Yup. And hence I seriously question fuseprime's credibility given how he claims to be a responsible gun owner yet object to gps tracking add-on for guns because the criminals would just disable them. Why would that matter to responsible gun owners at all, what criminals would do? For the record, I'm all for the idea of GPS tracking, and pretty much anything that could restrict the acquisition and use of guns. Hell, I'd be happy if some magical dinosaur aliens came to earth and zapped all the guns into the core of the sun, and I consider the world a better place for it. I'm just saying that its not necessarily fair to paint anyone who opposes such measures as an irresponsible gun owner, nor demonstrates a logical I consistency in their position. I can see how, to a gun owner, these measures would seem to punish responsible, law abiding gun owners by increasing the retail cost of buying a gun, making it easier for the government to track and possibly confiscate (however unlikely, it's certainly not in the realm of the impossible), while creating either very little benefit to the community or very little detriment to to an unlawful possessor of a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupis42 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 :rolleyes: Really? This coming how many posts after you asked me to link the studies on a state level. Way to be a kook, if you have something in particular in mind feel free to provide it. Sorry - I was irritable and posted anyway. My fault. My issue with gun deaths is that it a) conflates a bunch of fairly different things (legitimate self defense - sometimes including police actions - where lethal force was used, violent crime, and suicide) that have very different causes, and don't make sense to conflate, while excluding things (homicides with knives, bombs, etc, suicides with non-firearm methods) that are likely to be substitutes for some of those gun deaths. It is, in other words, a measure that only makes sense to use if the fact that a gun was the means is the important thing, not the death. It makes more sense to look at homicides, suicides, violent crimes, or some similar means independent measure. That doesn't change the point the Harvard professor is making in the slightest. All the more reason why action needs to be taken. What action would you advocate? The law has been passed in NJ for years and neither has CA or NY passed similar laws. This objection sounds hollow and specious. It's pessimistic, but within days of Newtown, NY passed a statewide act making it a felony to own the most popular sporting rifle in America. In MA, firearms license renewals in some towns take so long that people become felons while waiting for their updated permit to arrive, and the legislature's first and foremost goal whenever a new gun-related bill comes along seems to be to make that process worse. I have no particular reason to be optimistic. There are several technologies for this purpose, but the one most akin to a cheap add-on to your smart phone would be an embedded RFID chip. Adding electronics into a relatively simple mechanical process is a substantial bump in complexity. If the fail state for those electronics is that the gun doesn't go bang, it's going to be unacceptably unreliable. If the failure state is that the gun goes bang, what's the point of all that cost and complexity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Sorry - I was irritable and posted anyway. My fault.My issue with gun deaths is that it a) conflates a bunch of fairly different things (legitimate self defense - sometimes including police actions - where lethal force was used, violent crime, and suicide) that have very different causes, and don't make sense to conflate, while excluding things (homicides with knives, bombs, etc, suicides with non-firearm methods) that are likely to be substitutes for some of those gun deaths. It is, in other words, a measure that only makes sense to use if the fact that a gun was the means is the important thing, not the death.It makes more sense to look at homicides, suicides, violent crimes, or some similar means independent measure.....Gun deaths due to legitimate self-defence are apparently relatively rare, and could almost be ignored (230 deaths compared to 8275 murders 1), suicides of course make up the majority of gun deaths. What then becomes important is that murders involving guns seem to be in addition to a baseline murder level. Apparently both in international comparisons between western nations and within the USA (see for example table 2 in http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf for an example of the latter).* Similarly in suicides gun suicides are to a large extent additional to a base suicide level, which is contributed to ease of access, immediacy and success rate. *eta: statistics are of course complicated by the types of guns common in countries, hunting style weapons such as shotguns and rifles are if I recall correctly less likely to be used in murders than hand-guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 of course the firearms industry won't support anything that will decrease sales, but it need never say this because it has millions of drones shilling for it with bleating second amendment talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Targdust Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 A successful attempt at self defense with a gun doesn't have to result in a deathA successful attempt at murder does result in a death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 A successful attempt at self defense with a gun doesn't have to result in a death Yep, of course. Although a successful attempt at self defence with a gun does not mean that that gun was actually needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.