| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2014 08:30:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
One lunatic AND one gun is a serious problem, and it's easier to reduce the number of guns than lunatics as proven by the country you brought up. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
You seem to read or reference mostly biased crap and yet you seem to claim that you're somehow unbiased, and that's just frustrating. I express doubt in the data presented by all parties, and you express absolutely faith in your side of the argument while trying to claim that I am the one being obstinate and biased- and that is DOUBLY frustrating. |
You're projecting. Hard. |
You're the one throwing around "proven" and "inescapable fact" etc.. But enough. Yes, I'm looking for data, but I'm looking for data to conclusively DISPROVE my hypothesis which I posited above, since that's what it would take for me to support heavy handed gun control. I'm not out to prove anything anyway - mostly I'm just encouraging us to keep up the dialog... This time I'm kinda wanting us to go towards a more fact based argument though, although, in fact, I don't really think anything could be proven or really disproven here anyway..
I think the data being agreed upon could then possibly lead to a further, more productive, discussion on the matter. I would like to look at the trends and see what you think about them and see what I think about them, and then discuss that, instead of citing the work of other, even more questionable, sources.
Message edited by author 2014-01-24 20:35:17. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 08:33:11 PM · #27 |
Bro, chill.
It's the Aussie thing to do. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 08:35:46 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by pamb:
Bro, chill.
It's the Aussie thing to do. |
You're clearly suffering from heat exhaustion. ;) |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 08:36:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting. |
ROFL! I live in a town where cars are in 99% of the homes, and we've never had a mass car crash. Therefore, laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration, safety inspections and banning monster trucks are foolish and only leave law abiding citizens defenseless against unlicensed criminals in unsafe monster trucks. Your argument is a movie fantasy, and most mass shooters were "law abiding citizens" until they opened fire. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 08:40:46 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Yes, I'm looking for data, but I'm looking for data to conclusively DISPROVE my hypothesis which I posited above, since that's what it would take for me to support heavy handed gun control. |
NRA-backed Federal laws prohibit the research you're looking for. Guess why.
Message edited by author 2014-01-24 20:45:18. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:20:59 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chazoe:
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting. |
ROFL! I live in a town where cars are in 99% of the homes, and we've never had a mass car crash. Therefore, laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration, safety inspections and banning monster trucks are foolish and only leave law abiding citizens defenseless against unlicensed criminals in unsafe monster trucks. Your argument is a movie fantasy, and most mass shooters were "law abiding citizens" until they opened fire. |
Wrong.
Most of them were NOT "law abiding citizens".
|
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:28:24 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Most of them were NOT "law abiding citizens". |
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, etc. had no prior criminal record. They were all "law abiding citizens."
Message edited by author 2014-01-24 21:29:06. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:34:41 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Most of them were NOT "law abiding citizens". |
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, etc. had no prior criminal record. They were all "law abiding citizens." |
Nope, wrong again. Most, if not all, had ongoing psychiatric issues, which means they are forbidden by law from possessing of a gun. As soon as they picked up a gun they were breaking the law and by definition no longer law abiding. They didn't have a criminal record, but that's very different from abiding by the law.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:37:48 PM · #34 |
After reading this thread I became really confused.
Shannon is making an argument in the forums, and it's not about Apple products. WTH is this world coming too.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:44:26 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting.
Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens |
I'll ignore for a moment the fact that it's hard to have a mass shooting without a mass of people nearby, but...mass shootings are actually pretty rare, even in 'armed to the teeth' parts of the US. At 365 mass shootings per year, it's literally a one in a million thing. That said, I'll bet you have had a suicide or two in your small town that wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a gun.
Interesting article about a study linking gun deaths to gun ownership by country. Other than the outlier of South Africa, gun ownership and gun deaths are pretty much proportional, with the US leading the pack, of course.
Different article, that shows the correlation between gun laws and gun deaths, that says that over half of gun deaths are actually suicides.
I'm usually more into statistics than anecdotes, but over the course of my fairly quiet adult life I've known 14 people who were shot and killed, five of whom were children. 13 were either suicides or murder/suicide, and one was an accident. All of the guns were legal, and six of the eight shooters had either military or law enforcement training.
The five children were all killed by their own parents as part of family murder/suicides. All of the shooters were law abiding citizens, at least until they killed their own families.
A gun can be a useful tool out on the farm or when hunting, and I don't want to ban them outright, but I think we could definitely do with fewer people owning guns in the US. I don't want to go to any more childrens' funerals. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:46:18 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by chazoe:
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting. |
ROFL! I live in a town where cars are in 99% of the homes, and we've never had a mass car crash. Therefore, laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration, safety inspections and banning monster trucks are foolish and only leave law abiding citizens defenseless against unlicensed criminals in unsafe monster trucks. Your argument is a movie fantasy, and most mass shooters were "law abiding citizens" until they opened fire. |
Did I say guns shouldn't be registered? Did I say background check should be abolished?
Responsible gun ownership is just as important as responsible vehicle ownership.
Message edited by author 2014-01-24 21:46:35. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:48:44 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by chazoe:
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting.
Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens |
I'll ignore for a moment the fact that it's hard to have a mass shooting without a mass of people nearby, but...mass shootings are actually pretty rare, even in 'armed to the teeth' parts of the US. At 365 mass shootings per year, it's literally a one in a million thing. That said, I'll bet you have had a suicide or two in your small town that wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a gun.
Interesting article about a study linking gun deaths to gun ownership by country. Other than the outlier of South Africa, gun ownership and gun deaths are pretty much proportional, with the US leading the pack, of course.
Different article, that shows the correlation between gun laws and gun deaths, that says that over half of gun deaths are actually suicides.
I'm usually more into statistics than anecdotes, but over the course of my fairly quiet adult life I've known 14 people who were shot and killed, five of whom were children. 13 were either suicides or murder/suicide, and one was an accident. All of the guns were legal, and six of the eight shooters had either military or law enforcement training.
The five children were all killed by their own parents as part of family murder/suicides. All of the shooters were law abiding citizens, at least until they killed their own families.
A gun can be a useful tool out on the farm or when hunting, and I don't want to ban them outright, but I think we could definitely do with fewer people owning guns in the US. I don't want to go to any more childrens' funerals. |
Do you honestly expect me to believe that there would be no murder-suicides or regular suicides with out guns? Talk about ROFL |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:55:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by chazoe:
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting.
Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens |
I'll ignore for a moment the fact that it's hard to have a mass shooting without a mass of people nearby, but...mass shootings are actually pretty rare, even in 'armed to the teeth' parts of the US. At 365 mass shootings per year, it's literally a one in a million thing. That said, I'll bet you have had a suicide or two in your small town that wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a gun.
Interesting article about a study linking gun deaths to gun ownership by country. Other than the outlier of South Africa, gun ownership and gun deaths are pretty much proportional, with the US leading the pack, of course.
Different article, that shows the correlation between gun laws and gun deaths, that says that over half of gun deaths are actually suicides.
I'm usually more into statistics than anecdotes, but over the course of my fairly quiet adult life I've known 14 people who were shot and killed, five of whom were children. 13 were either suicides or murder/suicide, and one was an accident. All of the guns were legal, and six of the eight shooters had either military or law enforcement training.
The five children were all killed by their own parents as part of family murder/suicides. All of the shooters were law abiding citizens, at least until they killed their own families.
A gun can be a useful tool out on the farm or when hunting, and I don't want to ban them outright, but I think we could definitely do with fewer people owning guns in the US. I don't want to go to any more childrens' funerals. |
Do you honestly expect me to believe that there would be no murder-suicides or regular suicides with out guns? Talk about ROFL |
No. But I do expect you to believe that they'd be a *lot* less common. You responded so fast that I have to assume you didn't read the articles I linked to. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 09:55:29 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Most, if not all, had ongoing psychiatric issues, which means they are forbidden by law from possessing of a gun. As soon as they picked up a gun they were breaking the law and by definition no longer law abiding. |
BZZZT! False. Having psychiatric issues does not preclude legal gun ownership. In most states, you would have to be confined to a mental institution or barred from gun ownership by court order. Four states, including Colorado, have NO laws against the mentally ill owning guns. Nice try, though. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 10:15:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by MattO:
After reading this thread I became really confused.
Shannon is making an argument in the forums, and it's not about Apple products. WTH is this world coming too. |
Not to worry, Apple just hasn't announced the iPistol yet. |
|
|
|
01/24/2014 10:38:12 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Hmm... I still can't find the data I'm looking for in those links. Stagolee provided perfect data for his country - I really want to compare the two in a meaningful way, but data on one year isn't sufficient, nor is historical hispanic data. Maybe I just missed the table - please point it out if I did. |
This might help Cory
I found this on an American website Library of Congress 2013...... looks like congress have been looking at our gun laws!
For the record I'm a gun owner and I fully support the Australian Governments gun control laws.
Just so everyone knows the key points from the Australian gun laws :
â€Â˘ a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms, included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those firearms included in Licence Category C.” The sale, resale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending on the category of the firearm);
â€Â˘ standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);
â€Â˘ a requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm, with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such permits,[25] and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;
â€Â˘ a uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers and right of inspection by police;
â€Â˘ restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for which the purchaser is licensed;
â€Â˘ ensuring that “personal protection” would not be regarded as a “genuine reason” for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories;
â€Â˘ standardized classifications to define a “genuine reason” that an applicant must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements (additional requirements of showing a genuine need for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);
â€Â˘ in addition to the demonstration of a “genuine reason,” other basic requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a “fit and proper person,” be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety training[31] (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be “comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categories”);
â€Â˘ firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder’s address, be issued after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities;
â€Â˘ licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the licensee’s storage facilities;
â€Â˘ minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm”
â€Â˘ the establishment of uniform standards for the security and storage of firearms, including a requirement that ammunition be stored in locked containers separate from any firearms. The minimum standards for category C, D, and H firearms would include “storage in a locked, steel safe with a thickness to ensure it is not easily penetrable, bolted to the structure of a building.”
|
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:07:18 AM · #42 |
Well I'm glad to see that some merkins are starting to realise that we can have our liberty AND gun control:) I'm not one for data & statistics on this but I would like to raise the issue of culture....guns just seem such a huge part of US culture, while here (disregarding country folk) it's not even on the radar. Maybe changing the culture & education on this subject a little may help.
In my lifetime I have seen several entrenched 'doctrines' turned around over a few short decades (generations).... litter, drink driving & smoking just to name a few. It's not that hard to change a population's view on a subject, over a relatively short time, if society is behind it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:19:58 AM · #43 |
It's been against the law to shoot people for a long time.
Suicides are probably up because the economy crashed in 09. Is there a similar rise in suicide rate by other means? |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:37:38 AM · #44 |
Cause and effect is so difficult to prove in sociology. Cory, if you want to argue with Shannon ( and who wouldn't because it's so much fun (eye roll)), take a note of stagolee's link and look at the chart close to the bottom showing gun homicides as a percentage of all homicides. Shannon told you that deaths fell in the years after gun control was enacted in 1996, but failed to note that gun deaths had already been falling steadily since the 1960s. A reasonable question is to ask why this is and could that reason account for the drop after gun legislation as well.
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 00:53:20. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:52:08 AM · #45 |
Another case in point is murder rates in New York City.
I am unaware of a massive influx of guns from the 1960s onward and a massive efflux in the period after, yet we note a nearly 4-fold difference in the homicide rate between highs and lows. If the strength of gun control measures did not drastically change in that period, then we must assume that in this case at least there are other factors which have a much stronger influence.
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 00:52:24. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 01:33:09 AM · #46 |
Re the last post by Dr A, perhaps the drop beginning in 1990 has something to do with the advances of technology in criminal investigation and the proliferation of cameras everywhere.
It may be interesting to see if the drop on the chart corresponds with a change in the ratio of solved / unsolved murders, and convictions compared to the same ratio before 1990.
Maybe it's just become harder to "get away with murder" than it used to be. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 01:40:24 AM · #47 |
To find myself agreeing with Sneezy and opposed to Shannon is a strange place to be!
I absolutely noted the dropping trend. I'd like for us to really think about all of this data - I'm not even going to respond for a couple of days (driving, etc) but I think we might actually be on the path to a meaningful discussion here.
--
So - in the mean time - what other factors are more closely correlated with the homicide rate in AU? Is there anything we can say is well correlated? Or is this just quasi-random fluctuation? |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 02:48:03 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Re the last post by Dr A, perhaps the drop beginning in 1990 has something to do with the advances of technology in criminal investigation and the proliferation of cameras everywhere. |
Pointing out crime statistics in one U.S. city, as has been done here and with Chicago in the past, is both cherry picking and foolish given the ease of acquiring guns in lax neighboring areas in the absence of a national effort. The spike in homicides during the 80s and early 90s and subsequent drop is commonly attributed to a major crack epidemic at the time followed by more and better policing (including a controversial stop and frisk policy specifically designed to remove guns, and a boost from the 1990 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons). Incidentally, I started workng in NYC in 1988 and witnessed the change first hand. It works.
That the homicide rate should follow the overall crime rate is hardly surprising given the ready availability of firearms. It's like pointing out a sudden rise in gun deaths during the civil war and cynically musing that there was no preceding rise or eventual drop off in gun ownership. Duh. The simple fact that less guns leads to less gun violence is both blindingly obvious and confirmed locally, regionally and internationally to the extent that denial of this basic point is on par with denial of climate change, evolution and vaccine efficacy. Unsurprisingly, strong resistance to policy changes stemming from such denial has left us with climate inaction, falling scientific literacy, a rise in measles... and our 7th school shooting this month alone.
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 03:09:54. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 03:20:25 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The simple fact that less guns leads to less gun violence is both blindingly obvious and confirmed locally, regionally and internationally to the extent that denial of this basic point is on par with denial of climate change, evolution and vaccine efficacy. |
By this logic, we can dramatically lower the number of car accidents by selling more trucks, since if there are fewer cars on the road, clearly there will be fewer car accidents.
What is more useful is examining whether or not this actually lowers violence, murders, etc.
Speaking of that 7th school shooting this month, has anyone else noticed that all these shootings keep happening in 'gun-free' zones? Not saying there's any correlation there either, but it is rather an interesting point.. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:10:21 PM · #50 |
| Don't worry, Cory. I don't necessarily disagree with Shannon. I just don't like the way he argues. He's a good polemicist, but a poor seeker of the truth. That, to me, is "blindingly obvious". He may, however, still be on the correct side. ;) |
|
