Tons of data out in the webisphere if you are willing to inform yourself on stats and facts and even differing opinions.
Read both points of view.. You might be surprised at what you conclude. Link above might get you started.
Hard to get definite numbers of lives saved because most of the time brandishing a weapon results in no crime committed and the perpetrator fleeing the scene - without the firearm.being discharged.
Lets say: Family of 5 at home when 2 guys break in, (not sure if they are armed) dad grabs shotgun and "click click" loads the chamber, suspects hear that and take off running. How many lives were saved? 5? All 7? How do you determine?. Its a guess.
Concealed carry states apparently have less gun crime - maybe crime in general. Criminals have no idea who is carrying or not. Quite a risky gamble.
**No idea the date on the link above, was just using it as a different perspective than what has been posted in this thread.
That article has my bullshitometer off the charts. 65 lives protected for every live lost? How is that even measured? And gun crime rates in states with stricter gun control laws are irrelevant so long as there is free movement between states, which there is.
The whole things reads like an opinion piece from Sarah Palin. Which of course is what you expect when actual scientific studies into guns are banned by law.
gun sale and crime stats are massively manipulated. It's powerful marketing info, so getting a truely objective assessment is near impossible. It's a bit like property ownership and immigration data back home....commercially sensitive information.
gun sale and crime stats are massively manipulated. It's powerful marketing info, so getting a truely objective assessment is near impossible. It's a bit like property ownership and immigration data back home....commercially sensitive information.
Oh I know.
But often the simplest answer is often the right one. Americans seem to think they are inherently different, that what has proven to work time and time again in other countries with very similar cultures, demographics and with other common, shared laws that work across both will for some reason not work with them in this instance because *insert utterly stupid reason here*.
Its like trying to argue 2+2=4 with a 3 year old and they won't listen.
morepork wrote:Brandishing a firearm......it's the OK corral.
It's just ridiculous. You want to be tooled up because the baddies are tooled up, and the baddies are tooled up because gun sales are comically unregulated. I'd suggest any "statistics" on crime rates associated with concealed carry are offset by the number of children shooting their relatives with negligent discharges. FFS, keep your concealed carry if you must, live that Red Dawn fantasy, but for the love of fuck, stop blocking attempts to prevent the mentally ill and criminally suspect from buying assault weapons. I mean, FUCK.
Even the most obvious response that someone carrying a firearm may not be trained to use it properly and put innocent bystanders at greater risk doesn't seem to cut it. Ive met some very intelligent americans who refuse to accept any argument over this almost religious right they have to own a firearm. Even discussions on limiting the types of firearm become highly emotional.
I confess to not getting it. If you want to shoot for sport then fine, but many of the weapons being sold are pretty useless for that - their only purpose is to kill people.
jared_7 wrote: And gun crime rates in states with stricter gun control laws are irrelevant so long as there is free movement between states, which there is.
Like in Illinois, for example.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
morepork wrote:Brandishing a firearm......it's the OK corral.
And speaking of the OK Corral, the murder rate involving guns was spectacularly low in the frontier - even taking into account the basic inconvenience of brandishing firearms at that time in history - and one of the participants of the shootout at said corral, Wyatt Earp was strict a.f. when it came to gun control during his tenure as sheriff in Dodge City. As in, "no guns, hand them in at my office, fuckfaces" level strict.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
jared_7 wrote: And gun crime rates in states with stricter gun control laws are irrelevant so long as there is free movement between states, which there is.
Like in Illinois, for example.
There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.
jared_7 wrote: And gun crime rates in states with stricter gun control laws are irrelevant so long as there is free movement between states, which there is.
Like in Illinois, for example.
There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.
Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.
The following is from the book the article quotes.
"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "
I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.
There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.
Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.
The following is from the book the article quotes.
"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "
I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.
This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
Coco wrote:
There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.
Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.
The following is from the book the article quotes.
"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "
I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.
This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.
Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.
It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.
You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.
canta_brian wrote:
The following is from the book the article quotes.
"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "
I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.
This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.
Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.
It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.
You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.
Calm your tits, jared. All articles, graphs, and published stuff is twisted in this arena. That was my point. Every graph and piece of "evidence" posted in this entire thread is flawed. You act like this subject is not up for pondering, and get pissy cos some doubt was shed and your little thong panties got in a wad? Somebody asked what the stats are of guns saving lives.. I posted a couple things with that in mind.. conclusive, twisted or not. It is all twisted and contorted. Get over yourself.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
Coco wrote:
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.
This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.
Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.
It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.
You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.
Calm your tits, jared. All articles, graphs, and published stuff is twisted in this arena. That was my point. Every graph and piece of "evidence" posted in this entire thread is flawed. You act like this subject is not up for pondering, and get pissy cos some doubt was shed and your little thong panties got in a wad? Somebody asked what the stats are of guns saving lives.. I posted a couple things with that in mind.. conclusive, twisted or not. It is all twisted and contorted. Get over yourself.
Thing is, it's not remotely twisted in the eyes of any right thinking person.
All the current bills are looking to achieve is some basic checks that would stop very specific people buying guns. People that society has decided in a case by case basis are dangerous.
Coco wrote:
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.
This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.
Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.
It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.
You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.
Calm your tits, jared. All articles, graphs, and published stuff is twisted in this arena. That was my point. Every graph and piece of "evidence" posted in this entire thread is flawed. You act like this subject is not up for pondering, and get pissy cos some doubt was shed and your little thong panties got in a wad? Somebody asked what the stats are of guns saving lives.. I posted a couple things with that in mind.. conclusive, twisted or not. It is all twisted and contorted. Get over yourself.
I don't need to calm my tits. The subject is not up for pondering for any sane, rational, logical person. Like the entire western world as well as the overwhelming majority of Americans. People deemed risky enough to be on a terror watch list should not be able to buy semi-automatic weapons. Someone off the street should not be able to buy an AR-15 within 10 minutes of walking into the store.
You can spin it any way you want, America has a problem with gun violence. It also lets terror suspects buy guns, citizens to carry assault weapons, and people to pack whilst they get drunk in bars or whilst they teach kids in class. Unfortunately the gun lobby has blocked any studies into the area but my gut reaction is the these things may, just may, be related.
The vast majority of Americans welcome more stringent regulations and restrictions. However, when the regulations and restrictions already on the books are not being heavily enforced, it is hard for some to agree that even more regulation (that may not be enforced) will do much good. This is an issue for many people in America.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
Coco wrote:The vast majority of Americans welcome more stringent regulations and restrictions. However, when the regulations and restrictions already on the books are not being heavily enforced, it is hard for some to agree that even more regulation (that may not be enforced) will do much good. This is an issue for many people in America.
Why have regulations, restrictions, or hell, even laws at all, then? What good will stricter regulations that the majority of the American population do? I dunno, ask the Australians.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
The bare bones of the matter are that it would be impossible to repeal gun laws in the US, the practical implications are unrealistic, the only things that can be done is tighter regulations from now on.
Of course mass shootings don't make people sleep any easier in their beds at night so when gun law is bought up in a reactionary way to a shooting the message is falling on deaf ears to an extent.
Meanwhile, Istanbul's main airport was hit by terrorists last night, resulting in 41 deaths and over 200 injured. My Lebanese pal had just flown in earlier that evening, arrived at 8pm. This is the 4th terrorist attack in Istanbul this year and there were also two big ones in Ankara. They're blaming ISIS again, but that doesn't seem particularly logical to me. The attacks in Ankara clearly targeted the Kurds, and the Kurds in Syria & Iraq have been leading the fight against ISIS (much to the Turkish government's outrage), so I can see some logic behind blaming ISIS for the Ankara attacks (serving as a proxy, no doubt), but none whatsoever behind blaming them for the others. Meanwhile, Turkish forces have decimated the south-east of the country in their "war against the PKK."
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
