Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

Rellik San

New member
Feb 3, 2011
609
0
0
The Grinch said:
Rellik San said:
Interesting fact for you: There are more licensed firearms in Canada than the US, but a much lower rate of gun crime.
That's extraordinarily misleading. Firearms are not required to be licensed in almost all states, and they're required to be licensed in all of Canada.

We have around 300 million guns in America. Nobody else comes remotely close.
Apologies, you're right.

What I meant to say was, legally purchased firearms and my information is radically out of date in regards to those.

Although I still maintain the rest of my point.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
I don't think you understand hunting. You know why we hunt deer? It's not just because people like the taste of deer meat, and find deer to be fun targets to shoot at. It's because we've systematically wiped out the vast majority of large predators in the US (for the safety of people living there), and as such if we don't hunt the deer in the predators' steed the deer population explodes, and then they starve to death because they can't support their numbers.
Sometimes yes, mostly no. Ultimately the sport is symbiotic, but the personal rewards of meat and trophies and the thrill of the hunt far, far outweigh some misplaced sense of civic duty to save us all from the unimaginably terrible antlered ones when most people decide to pick up a gun and go afield. Society culls, man hunts.

That wasn't at all the point of my post though. The point was that gun-control advocates often espouse this erroneous canned belief that hunting weapons should automatically get a free pass but recreational shooting implements shouldn't which, of course, is bullshit. Target shooting is a far more popular sport than hunting and carries its own secondary benefits as well. Not to mention that hunters don't need unfettered access to their weapons year-round to perform population control so it's still a moot point. One could simply keep a solitary deer rifle locked away in a gun club vault until it's time to aerate Bambi's mom and achieve the same end. So why the special privilege? Hint: it's because they're regurgitating something they think sounds reasonable but without having scrutinized it for themselves.

So no, hunters aren't "harming living beings" as you put it,
I don't know about the rest of you people but when I put an arrow or a rifle round through an animal I'm pretty sure it harms them. That's actually kind of the point.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Semes said:
Amir Kondori said:
There are actually a lot of sources I can link but this is probably the best one:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
If thats your best source I suggest you find a new one. It is factually incorrect, "Luxemburg has a murder rate of 9.01", page 652, the correct figure was 0.9 at the time. It claims the usual fictitious violent crime in Britain is higher than the US. Uses heavily biased, unreliable or completely nonexistent sources.

spartan231490 said:
Since you've posted your copy and paste links 5 times lets look at the rest of them. Starting with the blog [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html] post, its an opinion piece that can easily be dismissed. Personally I view a country where you dont feel the need to carry weapons as civilised. As its mainly there to repeat the nonsense claims of DGU(defensive gun usages) lets move on the the guncite [http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html] article where Kleck defends his 2.5 million DGU a year. The official [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf#page=12] statistics show that in 5 years (2007-2011) there was a total of 338,700 DGU, an average of roughly 68,000 a year. A long way from 2.5 million. In 2011 alone there was 478,400 violent crimes [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf#page=2] in which a firearm was used, more than 7 times higher than the average DGU. So it appears that the self defence argument holds no weight.

OT: I like the German firearm laws [http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/germany.php] and as Germany has the 4th highest firearm ownership I doubt Im alone.

To butt into Farson and Frissons debate it would probably help matters if you define what "strict gun laws" are. West European firearm laws are strict by US standards etc.
I said right in my post that the last one was an opinion piece, so calm down.

"Official" statistics? Please tell me you're joking. This study is no longer accepted as accurate for estimating DGUs, for all the reasons stated here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

You can tell that, because even the anti-gun Obama study concluded that there are more DGUs each year than criminal uses of guns: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73619-obama-ordered-cdc-study-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative/ and before you start asking about the source, I'm sorry I can't find the original study, but I consider the massive number of websites saying the same thing with not a single dissenter to be a pretty good confirmation of accuracy: https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+gun+study&rlz=1C1ASRM_enUS545US545&oq=obama+gun+study&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0j69i60.2404j0&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
If there was an official DGU number, it would be 1.5 million DGUs each year as found by the national institute of justice in 1994. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

So in effect, your entire argument against me is based on a study that even the gun-control people have stopped supporting as genuine, and you have the call to call it the "official statistics." Look, maybe you should go read some of those sources a little more thouroughly, since it's obvious you didn't even read the one that you were arguing against. If you had, you would have seen it was supported by fifteen independent studies that produced results far more agreeable with the Kleck numbers than with the NCVS study that Kleck pointed out had flawed sampling practices, because the NCVS study was never designed to get an accurate count of DGUs.
 

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
2,118
0
41
Not anti-gun control but hey. I live life on the edge so I'll post anyway.
Anything that would be more useful as a weapon than a knife should be banned. If its something that can barely go 15 meters and might give somebody a sore shoulder than its fine. But I value my safety more than your entertainment.

I'm pretty liberal about most things.
Drugs, piracy, long walks on the beach, etc.
But when you start endangering other people for your entertainment, even if you don't plan on shooting people, I get a problem.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
loc978 said:
shootthebandit said:
snip
Quite alright. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust the average American with a firearm, if I had a choice. snip
Based on what? The less than 1/100,000 of us that have a fatal accident each year? So much safer than the more than 7/100,000 who kill themselves with a ladder each year. Or the 10/100,000 who accidentally poison themselves? That's not even mentioning the 14/100,000 that kill themselves in a car crash. And that rate of accidental firearm fatalities is based on an estimate for number of total gun owners that is probably low by as much as 20%. But no, it's clear that the over 80 million gun-owning Americans can't be trusted to handle a weapon safely. Then again, it's also clear that if you believe that then by simple numeric progression you also don't trust your fellow Americans with Cars, Bleach, or Ladders either.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
I forgot to answer the OP in my other posts, so here goes--I'd more or less leave availability alone but improve controls on accessibility and maybe raise some taxes to offset the financial burden the freedom places on society. You can't go overboard with taxes though because at some point it becomes discriminatory to lower-income individuals, and if it's exclusive to anyone then it's not exactly a protected freedom anymore.

-Promote safe storage
--a small increase to tax on guns and ammunition to help offset the financial burden
---background checks on all sales
----stronger background checks

I might go so far as to embrace registration and licensing to reduce straw purchases and personal responsibility, but don't quote me on that.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "sniper rifle," that's a category in video games and a marketing gimmick. And yes, it's sometimes a military designation, too, but sniping just means shooting from concealment and can be accomplished with anything from a pistol to a slingshot to a M2 machine gun. But, historically speaking, the guns used by 'snipers' in major conflicts have been the same models and used the same ammunition that a lot of civilians use for hunting. The M1903 Springfield used by the US in WWII does the exact same thing as, say, a Savage Arms .30-06 that's marketed primarily towards civilians, or even that generic camouflage monstrosity you'd find down at your local Wal-Mart.

Which shouldn't be so surprising, really. Both hunting guns and "sniper rifles" are meant to do the same thing--take game at a distance. Whether that game is on two legs or four doesn't matter that much.


Likewise, "military grade weaponry" is a meaningless expression. Does this include 9mm and .45 handguns as well as AK47s and AR-15s? Plenty of soldiers carried 1911s and Beretta m9s into combat, after all. Or, should people be allowed to buy .45s that were designed specifically for the civilian market but not ones originally developed in the pursuit of military contracts? I mean they're functionally the same, so exactly what good would that do?
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
I'm still waiting for an explanation for why automobiles, something with everyday practical use for nearly EVERYONE... are so much more heavily regulated than devices designed exclusively for killing things.

Seriously. Anyone? It seems like the most sane solution here. Quit banning things on whether they look scary or not (lol "assault weapons") and give hard-defined categories with license classes. Require basic insurance coverage for a "gun license" with required education and testing. A minimum age could be considered, but is far less important than the education, licensing, and registration.

Seems like the best way to make everyone happy. A fully-implemented licensing solution could make a number of currently-banned weapons more accessible, but with explicit restrictions and requirements.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Semes said:
spartan231490 said:
"Official" statistics? Please tell me you're joking. This study is no longer accepted as accurate for estimating DGUs, for all the reasons stated here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
You mean that the study that was posted in May 2013, by the Departmant of Justice is no longer accepted?
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf#page=12 thats the link in full.

spartan231490 said:
You can tell that, because even the anti-gun Obama study concluded that there are more DGUs each year than criminal uses of guns: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73619-obama-ordered-cdc-study-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative/ and before you start asking about the source, I'm sorry I can't find the original study, but I consider the massive number of websites saying the same thing with not a single dissenter to be a pretty good confirmation of accuracy:
Nonsense, If you want to use that come back with the data not opinion pieces disguised as news sources

spartan231490 said:
If there was an official DGU number, it would be 1.5 million DGUs each year as found by the national institute of justice in 1994. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
You try to trump a 2013 study by the department of justice with a 1994 study by the department of justice? The world changes in 20 years.
No, I trump a study designed to find number of victimization that asks a few perfunctory questions about self-defense with a study designed to estimate number of DGUs each year.

I quit. I pointed out an obvious and irrevocable flaw in the methodology because you're citing a study that isn't designed to find the relevant statistic. I pointed out that you have one study that contradicts all accepted knowledge including 16 studies that I personally provided a source for, and you dismiss it. I point out an entire google search worth of sources supporting that a 2013 study ordered by the pro-gun control debate concluded that DGUs outnumber crimes, but of course, you're the one who's correct.
 

Thr33X

New member
Aug 23, 2013
189
0
0
Firearms need to be regulated. Point blank and period. To think that any human being with a weapon is not capable of taking another human life for the most minute of reasons is like thinking that people can have civil conversation on the internet. Don't be so damn naive just because you happen to have owned or own firearms and you've never had to pull one on another man (or woman). If that's the case then good on you...you really shouldn't have any objection to legal regulation on guns then, because you're a model citizen and you can easily follow said regulations. Unless of course it's a matter of your "freedom" being taken from you.

It's only pro-gun lobbyists and gun owners who don't seem to understand this simple concept. Nobody wants to take anyone's guns away. What they want is comprehensive regulation of what is deemed acceptable to be in the possession of the average, non-military/law enforcement citizen, so that another unstable whack job doesn't get his hands on another AR-15 and start shooting as many people as his high capacity clip allows. A universal, unilateral legislation by which all states have one clear, concise distinction of what firearms should or shouldn't be sold to the general public, and comprehensive measures in place for those who are eligible. By making the process more precise, they can be more pro-active. Then's it's not about Texas' definition of a "sport" rifle or Virginia, it's one definition across the board, who can have them and what they need to have them.

This isn't about YOUR guns, it's about human lives and how many can potentially be saved by keeping better tabs on the sale and distribution of these weapons designed for mass murder.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Semes said:
spartan231490 said:
"Official" statistics? Please tell me you're joking. This study is no longer accepted as accurate for estimating DGUs, for all the reasons stated here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
You mean that the study that was posted in May 2013, by the Departmant of Justice is no longer accepted?
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf#page=12 thats the link in full.

spartan231490 said:
You can tell that, because even the anti-gun Obama study concluded that there are more DGUs each year than criminal uses of guns: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73619-obama-ordered-cdc-study-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative/ and before you start asking about the source, I'm sorry I can't find the original study, but I consider the massive number of websites saying the same thing with not a single dissenter to be a pretty good confirmation of accuracy:
Nonsense, If you want to use that come back with the data not opinion pieces disguised as news sources

spartan231490 said:
If there was an official DGU number, it would be 1.5 million DGUs each year as found by the national institute of justice in 1994. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
You try to trump a 2013 study by the department of justice with a 1994 study by the department of justice? The world changes in 20 years.

EDIT: In fact, looking closer at your 1994 DOJ study brings up this little gem on page 9 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf#page=9 and I quote

"The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.
For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in
which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS" (edit for formating)

and

"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases"
Read more carefully, that is operating with their raw assessed number of 3.1 million DGUs each year, not the 1.5 million each year that they reached after using the elimination process proposed by Kleck and Gertz, as seen in exhibit 7 from page 8.
Your own sources call out your claim.
 

Thr33X

New member
Aug 23, 2013
189
0
0
JarinArenos said:
I'm still waiting for an explanation for why automobiles, something with everyday practical use for nearly EVERYONE... are so much more heavily regulated than devices designed exclusively for killing things.

Seriously. Anyone? It seems like the most sane solution here. Quit banning things on whether they look scary or not (lol "assault weapons") and give hard-defined categories with license classes. Require basic insurance coverage for a "gun license" with required education and testing. A minimum age could be considered, but is far less important than the education, licensing, and registration.

Seems like the best way to make everyone happy. A fully-implemented licensing solution could make a number of currently-banned weapons more accessible, but with explicit restrictions and requirements.
This is what I was saying, though not as direct or concise. But a system needs to be put into place the eliminates all the grey area regarding firearms and how people are allowed to have them. Then everyone can be happy, gun-owners can keep their guns, so long as they follow the rules put in place. You have to renew your driver's license by retaking tests, so why shouldn't that be the case with weapons?
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
spartan231490 said:
loc978 said:
shootthebandit said:
snip
Quite alright. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust the average American with a firearm, if I had a choice. snip
Based on what? The less than 1/100,000 of us that have a fatal accident each year? So much safer than the more than 7/100,000 who kill themselves with a ladder each year. Or the 10/100,000 who accidentally poison themselves? That's not even mentioning the 14/100,000 that kill themselves in a car crash. And that rate of accidental firearm fatalities is based on an estimate for number of total gun owners that is probably low by as much as 20%. But no, it's clear that the over 80 million gun-owning Americans can't be trusted to handle a weapon safely. Then again, it's also clear that if you believe that then by simple numeric progression you also don't trust your fellow Americans with Cars, Bleach, or Ladders either.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
Pretty much, at least on cars. With accidental ladder and poisoning deaths, the person at risk tends to be oneself. With guns and cars, the person at the most risk tends to be a stranger. The law isn't there to protect us from ourselves (or shouldn't be). It's there to protect us from each other.

But the horribly lax licensing laws of state DMVs is a whole other subject. Way to derail. Again.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Semes said:
spartan231490 said:
Read more carefully, that is operating with their raw assessed number of 3.1 million DGUs each year, not the 1.5 million each year that they reached after using the elimination process proposed by Kleck and Gertz, as seen in exhibit 7 from page 8.
No its not its adding the data from people claiming mulitple DGU

"Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!"

"Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs"
Exhibit 7 very clearly states 1.5 million cases matching the Kleck criteria. I don't really know what you're trying to say here.
loc978 said:
spartan231490 said:
loc978 said:
Quite alright. In all fairness, I wouldn't trust the average American with a firearm, if I had a choice. snip
Based on what? The less than 1/100,000 of us that have a fatal accident each year? So much safer than the more than 7/100,000 who kill themselves with a ladder each year. Or the 10/100,000 who accidentally poison themselves? That's not even mentioning the 14/100,000 that kill themselves in a car crash. And that rate of accidental firearm fatalities is based on an estimate for number of total gun owners that is probably low by as much as 20%. But no, it's clear that the over 80 million gun-owning Americans can't be trusted to handle a weapon safely. Then again, it's also clear that if you believe that then by simple numeric progression you also don't trust your fellow Americans with Cars, Bleach, or Ladders either.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
Pretty much, at least on cars. With accidental ladder and poisoning deaths, the person at risk tends to be oneself. With guns and cars, the person at the most risk tends to be a stranger. The law isn't there to protect us from ourselves (or shouldn't be). It's there to protect us from each other.

But the horribly lax licensing laws of state DMVs is a whole other subject. Way to derail. Again.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize pointing out a flaw in your assertion that Americans are untrustworthy with guns, since they are provably safer with guns than they are with the unregulated ladders and cleaning products, was derailing. I didn't realize that implying that the majority of deaths do to guns come from intentional misuse, making any kind of safety training largely irrelevant, was derailing. Not to worry though, I'll be sure not to "derail" the tread with my facts again.
Semes said:
spartan231490 said:
I quit. I pointed out an obvious and irrevocable flaw in the methodology because you're citing a study that isn't designed to find the relevant statistic. I pointed out that you have one study that contradicts all accepted knowledge including 16 studies that I personally provided a source for, and you dismiss it. I point out an entire google search worth of sources supporting that a 2013 study ordered by the pro-gun control debate concluded that DGUs outnumber crimes, but of course, you're the one who's correct.
Don't quit, this was just getting fun. I added an edit to my previous post, I can repost it if you'd like. A google search of unsourced sites is hardly evidence of anything at all. Most of the sites link to each other as a source, and digging slightly deeper it seems to be a diary of things to study not an actual study in itself. Theres been information disregarding most of those 16 studies performed in the 80's and 90's for years. The recent gun control research ordered earlier this year had to be done by executive order because of the NRA backed ban on research that may lead to gun control.
What information? Point out the flaws . . . go ahead, I'll wait.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
Semes said:
Amir Kondori said:
There are actually a lot of sources I can link but this is probably the best one:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
If thats your best source I suggest you find a new one. It is factually incorrect, "Luxemburg has a murder rate of 9.01", page 652, the correct figure was 0.9 at the time. It claims the usual fictitious violent crime in Britain is higher than the US. Uses heavily biased, unreliable or completely nonexistent sources.
You don't just get to say that, I posted a source, you want to refute that source you need to post your source. That is how it works.