http://gamingtrend.com
December 20, 2014, 11:32:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Aurora and gun control  (Read 3009 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1097


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2012, 08:02:29 PM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on July 23, 2012, 07:59:31 PM

Our country was formed by the violent overthrow of our colonial masters.  Gun ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, part of our amended Constitution.  It's a central tenet of who we are.

Isn't that outdated? Guns were useful in overthrowing oppressive colonial masters, but in modern world, you need bigger firepower and military equipment to do it.

Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8943



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2012, 08:08:36 PM »

We might not be able to resist our own government, but we can certainly defend ourselves and our property more effectively than waiting on the cops.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
rshetts2
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2420



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2012, 08:17:11 PM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on July 23, 2012, 07:59:35 PM

Quote from: rshetts2 on July 23, 2012, 07:48:54 PM

Besides a ban on guns wont stop criminals from having guns, it will just stop law abiding citizens from having them. 

It'll stop a large percentage of criminals from having guns. Just look at countries with a total ban on guns, there are still some criminals that have access to guns but majority of the criminals don't.

Why have a law against drunk driving? People still drive while drunk. It'll not stop law breakers from drunk driving, it will just stop law abiding citizens. smile


Well, if you want to be silly about it surely the ban on drugs has worked so well, how could a ban on guns not work? And you make my point with your drunk driving remark, in spite of the laws people still drive drunk, many of them repeatedly.  When alcohol was illegal, I guarantee you that you still had drunk drivers.  Finally, making driving while drinking isnt a ban on drinking.  There are plenty of laws that restrict the use of guns, just like drunk driving laws restrict how you use alcohol.   Youre welcome to try again though, I like the entertainment value of your remarks.
 To be honest I dont own a gun and am not a pro gun person,  I just dont believe a gun ban would have changed this situation much.  Would it have made it more difficult for Holmes to get a gun?  Yea it would have.  Impossible?  I dont believe that for a second.  
Logged

Can you see the real me? Can ya, CAN YA?
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2012, 09:31:17 PM »

Quote from: rshetts2 on July 23, 2012, 07:48:54 PM

Quote from: Harkonis on July 23, 2012, 07:37:09 PM

Quote from: rshetts2 on July 23, 2012, 07:34:49 PM

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on July 23, 2012, 07:15:53 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on July 23, 2012, 06:47:48 PM

Quote from: gellar on July 23, 2012, 06:16:34 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on July 23, 2012, 05:23:59 PM

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.


Sure because theres no way if theres a total ban of guns, that Holmes could have gotten his hands on one.   retard

yeah, that type of thinking is about as naive as it gets.  He would have just firebombed the place, used some form of nerve gas or poison or something similar.  People like him will find a way.  Only way to stop them is to figure out they have a problem before they do something and get help for them. 

Tying this to gun control is just silly.

Was that directed at me?  If so you clearly missed the  retard smilie at the end of my statement.   To be clear a gun ban would not be the answer in this case.  If anyone thinks that a guy who boobytrapped his abode with gas and explosives couldnt come up with an alternative to guns, yeah that is naive.  Besides a ban on guns wont stop criminals from having guns, it will just stop law abiding citizens from having them. 

no, I was agreeing with you.  This type of misunderstanding and lack of following conversation chains though is why I usually avoid these conversations.
Logged
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2012, 09:33:45 PM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on July 23, 2012, 07:59:35 PM

Quote from: rshetts2 on July 23, 2012, 07:48:54 PM

Besides a ban on guns wont stop criminals from having guns, it will just stop law abiding citizens from having them. 

It'll stop a large percentage of criminals from having guns. Just look at countries with a total ban on guns, there are still some criminals that have access to guns but majority of the criminals don't.

Why have a law against drunk driving? People still drive while drunk. It'll not stop law breakers from drunk driving, it will just stop law abiding citizens. smile


that's a retarded analogy because that's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to murder someone.  It ISN'T illegal to drink and it ISN'T illegal to drive, it's only illegal when you combine them.  It's not illegal to own a gun, it's just illegal to use it on people.

I think you think you're smarter than you are what with the little smiley after your failed analogy.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2012, 11:36:51 PM »

Man I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.  A ban on guns will stop *many* criminals/crazies from having guns and will make it significantly harder for *all* criminals/crazies to have guns.  I cannot understand how this is an arguable point. 

As a strange analogy - I love drinking with my friends.  I do it quite often.  I'm a pretty big fan.  If prohibition were to come around, I'd stop cold turkey.  Not cause I don't like drinking, just cause I don't like it quite enough to break the law for it (even if I felt that law was retarded).

 There are lots of crazies out there.  Many can/will do crazy things with guns.  However if guns were not something they could easily (relatively) acquire, then some of those crazies would not have guns.

Whether or not it would have prevented *this particular* crazy from carrying out his lunacy, that's up for debate.  What's not up for debate is that it certainly would have been harder and provided some additional chances for prevention.  Whether that is worth our Freedoms (tm) is the eternal debate.

However the argument for MORE guns because if they were there in the theater things wouldn't have gone down like they did is one I find completely fucking asinine. 
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11552


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2012, 12:58:01 AM »

[citation needed], to be sure, but I remember seeing statistics that there's a higher rate of home invasions in places with total gun bans, presumably because the crazies who do find a way to get a gun have a miniscule risk of finding an angry homeowner with a shotgun.
Logged
VictorGrunn
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 24, 2012, 03:00:20 AM »

Quote from: gellar on July 23, 2012, 11:36:51 PM

Man I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.  A ban on guns will stop *many* criminals/crazies from having guns and will make it significantly harder for *all* criminals/crazies to have guns.  I cannot understand how this is an arguable point.  

As a strange analogy - I love drinking with my friends.  I do it quite often.  I'm a pretty big fan.  If prohibition were to come around, I'd stop cold turkey.  Not cause I don't like drinking, just cause I don't like it quite enough to break the law for it (even if I felt that law was retarded).

 There are lots of crazies out there.  Many can/will do crazy things with guns.  However if guns were not something they could easily (relatively) acquire, then some of those crazies would not have guns.

Whether or not it would have prevented *this particular* crazy from carrying out his lunacy, that's up for debate.  What's not up for debate is that it certainly would have been harder and provided some additional chances for prevention.  Whether that is worth our Freedoms (tm) is the eternal debate.

However the argument for MORE guns because if they were there in the theater things wouldn't have gone down like they did is one I find completely fucking asinine.  

The problem is that you assume "ban on guns" == "guns not easily acquired" == "less crazies/criminals would have guns".

To use one example, here's a report on how Australia's gun ban has affected gun crime.

Quote
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

I'm sure someone's going to call bias on the site, but the stats are what they are. Passing a law is not equivalent to enforcing the law. The Prohibition shows as much. Don't confuse a ban on guns with the literal lack of availability of guns, particularly for people who are willing to break the law anyway.

I don't like arguing about single cases (If gun laws were looser/if concealed carry was allowed in this theatre, what would have happened?) because that really gets off into fantasy land, in either direction (They would have shot him early! / They would have shot each other!) I will say that if you live in a culture where law-abiding citizen have a fairly high chance of being armed, even fantasies about doing what this guy did become more difficult. Suddenly, you can't really assume you're walking into a crowd of unarmed people you'll have at your mercy, even with perfect plans and tear gas. I honestly wonder if this would have an effect even on a flat out lunatic. There's that old joke about Stalin coming to mind: "He was crazy, but he wasn't stupid."

tl;dr version - "A ban on guns" does not equal "Less people, particularly less criminals and crazies, have guns" itself. I agree that the argument over self-defense is priority - even if the stats went in the other direction, I don't think gun rights supporters would necessarily care. But really, legislation and enforcement is a far trickier issue than that.
Logged
godhugh
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1064


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2012, 03:57:30 AM »

It's ridiculous that people are debating gun control in the aftermath of this tragedy when we should be focusing on the shameful state of mental health care in this country.
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2012, 06:42:26 AM »

Quote from: godhugh on July 24, 2012, 03:57:30 AM

It's ridiculous that people are debating gun control in the aftermath of this tragedy when we should be focusing on the shameful state of mental health care in this country.

Agreed. Don't even get me started about the problems in that area and in health care in general. Of course I'm slightly biased - pharmacy tech for nearly 15 years.

But as far as guns go - yes, I own one (Springfield XDM 9mm), yes I've fired plenty of rounds out of it, no I don't have a carry/conceal license (but could easily get one), no I wouldn't carry (gun too big to do so for starters, and work would so fire my ass despite it being useful for robberies in this state), yes it sits next to my bed nearly cocked and loaded for home defense.

In the end though, would I had fired back had I been armed and everything else in the theater? Good question. I'm leaning towards no, but I'm not sure at all.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1097


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2012, 07:30:15 AM »

Quote from: VictorGrunn on July 24, 2012, 03:00:20 AM


To use one example, here's a report on how Australia's gun ban has affected gun crime.

Quote
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

I'm sure someone's going to call bias on the site, but the stats are what they are. Passing a law is not equivalent to enforcing the law. The Prohibition shows as much. Don't confuse a ban on guns with the literal lack of availability of guns, particularly for people who are willing to break the law anyway.

Not only biased, that article is wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Quote
Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

What is higher? 24 percent in the 7 years prior to 1997 or 16.3 percent of 2006?

Now if you don't trust factcheck.org then check directly to the source:

2007-2008 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/%7B89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7Dmr13_004.pdf : 12% of homicide are by firearms.

2006-2007 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7BFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7Dmr01.pdf : 10% of homicide are by firearms.    

2005-2006 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/8/B/0/%7B8B014968-18C2-44D4-8055-1F66C6BE0F2A%7Drpp77.pdf : 14% of homicide are by firearms.

And compare to prior of gun control (1989-1996):

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/2/6/%7BF267B5F0-BB7E-4772-A64C-1B36DC33B377%7Dti75.pdf : 21% of homicide are by firearms.

As for the total homicide incident rate per 100000 (not only firearms related)?

1989-90 1.8
1990-91 1.9
1991-92 1.8
1992-93 1.9
1993-94 1.8
1994-95 1.8
1995-96 1.6
1996-97 1.6
1997-98 1.6
1998-99 1.7
1999-00 1.6
2000-01 1.6
2001-02 1.8
2002-03 1.5
2003-04 1.4
2004-05 1.2
2005-06 1.4
2006-07 1.2
2007-08 1.2
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 08:35:59 AM by Victoria Raverna » Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11552


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2012, 11:15:32 AM »

Quote from: godhugh on July 24, 2012, 03:57:30 AM

It's ridiculous that people are debating gun control in the aftermath of this tragedy when we should be focusing on the shameful state of mental health care in this country.

The entire premise of the thread is that the focus should not be on gun control after this tragedy.
Logged
VictorGrunn
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2012, 08:15:38 PM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on July 24, 2012, 07:30:15 AM

Not only biased, that article is wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

If it is wrong (and I'm trying to suss out where they are - they could be using statistical tricks) it doesn't seem to be completely wrong.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.aspx

Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.

The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.

The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

So it does seem like sexual assault and assault rates have been jumping in Australia since the gun ban. Robbery is difficult to get information for - I'm seeing conflicting information from AIC's own site. Homicides have decreased.

Let's look at America over the same term - 1996 to 2007.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1483999 Violent Crimes in 1996
1408337 Violent Crimes in 2007 (with population jumping from 242m to 301m, same period)

19650 Murders in 1996
16929 Murders in 2007

96250 Forcible Rape in 1996
90479 Forcible Rape in 2007

1,037,050 Aggravated Assault in 1996
855,856 Aggravated Assault in 2007

Those numbers seem to decline further over time, and really, they seem to be in decline across the board over that same period.

The site I referenced (again, http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847 ) even says outright:

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.


They weren't suggesting Australia had a homicide spike. They did say that overall violent crime was on the rise in Australia, and while I couldn't find an 'overall' stat, the assault and sexual assault stats do seem to bear that out.



Quote
Quote
Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

What is higher? 24 percent in the 7 years prior to 1997 or 16.3 percent of 2006?

Yep, if the article was wrong, it seems to have been wrong on this point. They cite "DC Examiner" for the claim, but I can't even find the article they're referencing.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.aspx shows firearm use in homicides decreasing. Of course, it also shows knife use rocketing up, so...

Quote
As for the total homicide incident rate per 100000 (not only firearms related)?

That's Australia, correct? Either way, see the above information. Total homicide incident rate has been dropping in the US as well over the same period. And the apparent total crime drop in the US over the same period, versus the rise in assault and sexual assault.

Edit: Just wanted to comment on this.

Quote
Isn't that outdated? Guns were useful in overthrowing oppressive colonial masters, but in modern world, you need bigger firepower and military equipment to do it.

It truly depends, since not every conflict (not even ones centered around overthrowing oppressive overlords) is a straight up head to head conflict. I think if there's one lesson we keep seeing, at least in international hotspots, it's that superior raw military force only counts so much against a determined populace with small arms access, when the goal is continued occupation and control - not "well, let's put these two sides up against each other on a nice level field and see who survives".
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 01:06:44 AM by VictorGrunn » Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2012, 01:27:48 AM »

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on July 23, 2012, 07:59:35 PM

Quote from: rshetts2 on July 23, 2012, 07:48:54 PM

Besides a ban on guns wont stop criminals from having guns, it will just stop law abiding citizens from having them. 

It'll stop a large percentage of criminals from having guns. Just look at countries with a total ban on guns, there are still some criminals that have access to guns but majority of the criminals don't.

Why have a law against drunk driving? People still drive while drunk. It'll not stop law breakers from drunk driving, it will just stop law abiding citizens. smile


So I guess you would want a total ban on alcohol to stop drunk driving.   I mean if people cant get alcohol they cant drive drunk.....
Logged
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2012, 02:40:12 AM »

I can vouch for the oddness that is state funded mental health care.  I tried to get some treatment for depression and the state provided therapist cancelled or postponed my appointment 3 times then scheduled me for a group session (which I would've hated) and when I showed up I found that it was for women only. Yay!  So they made it very hard for me to find help.

However in the interim, I went and got my lifetime concealed carry permit no problem. 

Mental health help, no.  Lifetime access to legally carry a concealed firearm, no problem.

Seems odd to me.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8943



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2012, 03:22:50 AM »

If you're below the poverty threshold, Texas will give you half off the cost of the origination fee and renewal.  Same rates are given to honorable discharged veterans.  If you're an elected felony prosecutor, they'll waive them completely.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3423



View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2012, 03:35:33 AM »

Quote from: VictorGrunn on July 24, 2012, 08:15:38 PM

Quote from: Victoria Raverna on July 24, 2012, 07:30:15 AM

Isn't that outdated? Guns were useful in overthrowing oppressive colonial masters, but in modern world, you need bigger firepower and military equipment to do it.

It truly depends, since not every conflict (not even ones centered around overthrowing oppressive overlords) is a straight up head to head conflict. I think if there's one lesson we keep seeing, at least in international hotspots, it's that superior raw military force only counts so much against a determined populace with small arms access, when the goal is continued occupation and control - not "well, let's put these two sides up against each other on a nice level field and see who survives".

Once a democratic government orders its forces to attack its own citizens, those citizens who comprise its forces start to have serious second thoughts about their career choice. In my lifetime, Kent State is the closest America has come to confronting that...four deaths nearly sparked a revolution. The analogy is imperfect because the students were not armed, but the point remains valid -- the populace definitely would not need to outgun our government to overthrow it.

The 2nd Amendment exists because in America the government derives its power from the citizens. Taking away their right to own weapons changes that equation.

This leaves open the more interesting question of where we draw the line. Citizens can currently own assault weapons under federal law, but they're banned in some states. We can't own bazookas or SAMs or tanks, so why do we draw the line at machine guns? They are weapons of war with no purpose but killing people.  

(FWIW, I own a couple of long guns that I haven't fired in decades. I grew up around guns and hunted for sport, but I'm not an enthusiast.)
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2012, 03:50:38 AM »

Quote from: VictorGrunn on July 24, 2012, 03:00:20 AM

Quote from: gellar on July 23, 2012, 11:36:51 PM

Man I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.  A ban on guns will stop *many* criminals/crazies from having guns and will make it significantly harder for *all* criminals/crazies to have guns.  I cannot understand how this is an arguable point. 

As a strange analogy - I love drinking with my friends.  I do it quite often.  I'm a pretty big fan.  If prohibition were to come around, I'd stop cold turkey.  Not cause I don't like drinking, just cause I don't like it quite enough to break the law for it (even if I felt that law was retarded).

 There are lots of crazies out there.  Many can/will do crazy things with guns.  However if guns were not something they could easily (relatively) acquire, then some of those crazies would not have guns.

Whether or not it would have prevented *this particular* crazy from carrying out his lunacy, that's up for debate.  What's not up for debate is that it certainly would have been harder and provided some additional chances for prevention.  Whether that is worth our Freedoms (tm) is the eternal debate.

However the argument for MORE guns because if they were there in the theater things wouldn't have gone down like they did is one I find completely fucking asinine. 

The problem is that you assume "ban on guns" == "guns not easily acquired" == "less crazies/criminals would have guns".

To use one example, here's a report on how Australia's gun ban has affected gun crime.

Quote
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

I'm sure someone's going to call bias on the site, but the stats are what they are. Passing a law is not equivalent to enforcing the law. The Prohibition shows as much. Don't confuse a ban on guns with the literal lack of availability of guns, particularly for people who are willing to break the law anyway.

I don't like arguing about single cases (If gun laws were looser/if concealed carry was allowed in this theatre, what would have happened?) because that really gets off into fantasy land, in either direction (They would have shot him early! / They would have shot each other!) I will say that if you live in a culture where law-abiding citizen have a fairly high chance of being armed, even fantasies about doing what this guy did become more difficult. Suddenly, you can't really assume you're walking into a crowd of unarmed people you'll have at your mercy, even with perfect plans and tear gas. I honestly wonder if this would have an effect even on a flat out lunatic. There's that old joke about Stalin coming to mind: "He was crazy, but he wasn't stupid."

tl;dr version - "A ban on guns" does not equal "Less people, particularly less criminals and crazies, have guns" itself. I agree that the argument over self-defense is priority - even if the stats went in the other direction, I don't think gun rights supporters would necessarily care. But really, legislation and enforcement is a far trickier issue than that.

Holy fucking shit.  Are you actually making these two arguments at the same time:

1) Guns being illegal wouldn't be a deterrent for any crazy/violent people.
2) However if everyone had guns, those same crazy/violent people would be deterred because they might be in a gunfight when they decide to go crazy.

Seriously?
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8943



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2012, 03:52:18 AM »

And remember that when a government starts to oppress its people, the people make up the armed forces as well.  Look at the situation in Syria where key military members are defecting, soldiers and entire units are changing sides, defecting pilots.  It is not without precedent and extreme likelihood that the same would happen here.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2012, 03:53:15 AM »

By the way, I'm not even anti gun.  I'm just anti dumbass arguments for why there should be more guns.
Logged
VictorGrunn
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2012, 05:42:39 AM »

Quote from: gellar on July 25, 2012, 03:50:38 AM

Holy fucking shit.  Are you actually making these two arguments at the same time:

1) Guns being illegal wouldn't be a deterrent for any crazy/violent people.
2) However if everyone had guns, those same crazy/violent people would be deterred because they might be in a gunfight when they decide to go crazy.

Seriously?

No, I didn't say either of those things.

Regarding 1, I said that there's a gulf between 'guns are illegal', 'guns are unavailable' and 'less crazy/violent people have guns', because it's not as if you just pass a law and suddenly guns vaporize and are off the street in an explosion of rainbows and unicorn farts. You only have to go as far as the prohibition, or hell, modern drug laws to see that.

The gulf exists - that's not an "argument", it's a fact. Recognizing the gulf does not cash out to saying "passing laws against gun ownership won't act as a deterrent". It certainly can be, but you still have to deal with that gulf to get there, however effective or ineffective it is.

As for 2, no, I said I wondered if it would be a factor. I have no idea if the lunatic who decides to shoot up a place takes that into account, but I do know that even lunatics aren't necessarily stupid - you can see as much from Ted Bundy to Anders Breivik. Does some guy who has a fantasy about walking into an area and plugging a roomful of innocent people have his fantasy checked if he thinks he's not getting a room full of victims, but possibly armed people? I have no idea. That's not an argument, that's honest curiosity.

And that's when it comes to crazy people. Violent people? Yeah, I wonder there too. Some violent people are selectively violent. Do you think muggers look at a crowd of people and go, "Alright, let's pick someone at random. Yeah, there we go, the guy in the uniform with the holstered gun on his belt. I bet he's loaded, look at all the lights and electronics in his car!"?

Quote
I'm just anti dumbass arguments for why there should be more guns.

This is just stupid. I'm not going to say "there should be more guns!", because I know the question is a lot more complicated than just dumping guns on the street and yelling "Hey everyone, free guns! This'll solve the crime problem!" The complexity is exactly what I'm pointing out. Even in the case of Australia, which has apparently seen a rise in assault and sexual assault since their gun ban, you don't see me saying "see? there's more crime because criminals aren't afraid of gun-owners!" I go as far as pointing out the trend and putting it into context, because for all I know there's ten other relevant factors at work with the Australian situation.

Tentatively I'd say, yeah, more responsible people with firearms, with proper training, would probably help matters. A dozen other changes, most of them cultural rather than legal, would help as well. But it's never as simple as "let's get rid of all the guns" OR "let's make sure there's a lot more guns", because the issue's more complicated than that.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2012, 07:18:34 AM »

Ah I sort of see your first point, I think.  It's not that you don't think gun laws would be effective in reducing violent crime, you just feel that it's significantly complicated to actually enforce them.  I was caught up in the statement 'The problem is that you assume "ban on guns" == "guns not easily acquired" == "less crazies/criminals would have guns".'

I agree that it's complicated, but not impossible to successfully ban firearms.  Clearly other countries have done it.  The point I'm making is that if you actually set out to ban guns and take the required measures to do so (again, something we will never do), you would certainly reduce the amount of gun related crimes just by virtue of raising the barrier to entry.  It's not going to reduce it to zero, of course.

Quote from: VictorGrunn on July 25, 2012, 05:42:39 AM

Tentatively I'd say, yeah, more responsible people with firearms, with proper training, would probably help matters.

This I do not at all agree with.  There is no level of training that could prepare any normal human being for the stress and adrenaline that would be there under a live fire scenario.  Unless we're going to make military service compulsory, that is. 
Logged
VictorGrunn
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2012, 07:56:35 AM »

Quote
I agree that it's complicated, but not impossible to successfully ban firearms.  Clearly other countries have done it.  The point I'm making is that if you actually set out to ban guns and take the required measures to do so (again, something we will never do), you would certainly reduce the amount of gun related crimes just by virtue of raising the barrier to entry.  It's not going to reduce it to zero, of course.

Which countries? And what counts as success? What about the areas that tried this and failed?

The reason I'm hesitant to grant that it follows easily is because it's not as if the number of guns in a populace is the only factor. To throw out a hypothetical situation - say you introduce a gun ban. It's very successful numerically - you can say, guaranteed, that there are now less guns in the country than there were before. But you can have that happen while largely disarming the regular citizens, and hardly disarming the criminal and likely criminal population. And if that occurs, I can see a situation showing up where you've got less guns, and more gun crime.

Now that's a hypothetical situation - it's made-up fantasy-land, not reality. But hopefully it illustrates what I think is a legitimate concern.

To use a related (but not 1:1 exact example) that I was told back in my macro-econ university days - will adding more streetlights result in less crime at night? It's a no-brainer in a way - more lighted areas means safer areas, end of discussion. I don't have the source for this, but it was a textbook example: in some areas, it had the opposite effect. More streetlights meant more people out at night, more people out at night meant not only more opportunities for crime, but more opportunities for people to walk into bad areas. That's not an argument against well-lit walkways necessarily. But it helps illustrate why solutions don't always work the way we'd expect. Especially solutions that ignore the actual human element.

Quote
This I do not at all agree with.  There is no level of training that could prepare any normal human being for the stress and adrenaline that would be there under a live fire scenario.  Unless we're going to make military service compulsory, that is.

I disagree - why even go to the military example? What about police? And even if you don't achieve some kind of 'now everyone is like Dirty Harry' clone result, which isn't at all a realistic goal, I think you could at least see a whole lot of improvement result. Especially if we agree that guns are here to stay: I mean, it's not as if you think discouraging training and responsible gun use/care is the way to go, right?

This is especially relevant considering a lot of the complaints about gun ownership/use often revolve around things like accidents, stolen weapons, etc. What's to be lost by an education and training emphasis?

I want to stress: I think there's more to this than gun training and education. I think the biggest concerns are cultural, which are typically not solved by legislation, and and for which the solutions are not easy whatsoever. But training and education certainly seems like a reasonable start.
Logged
jament
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2012, 02:52:08 PM »

All of the arguments are an interesting mental exercise but aren't most of them irrelevant?  Sure, you could ban new sales of assault weapons and I can understand that. But for the handgun debate, that war's been lost.

The cat's out of the bag, right?  The FBI estimates there are 200 million privately owned guns in the U.S., and 90 handguns per 100 people. It's a $10 billion dollar industry in the U.S.

If a handgun ban went into effect next year, there is no workable mechanism that could enable the government to get those guns out of the hands of private individuals. Then, they would have to address private sales between individuals. If they criminalized that, imagine the cost of conducting a 'war on guns', policing, enforcing and incarcerating citizens - most of whom are responsible, legal handgun owners.

And if you can't solve the handgun problem - you can only mitigate the issues that gun control intends to address.
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12600


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2012, 04:21:59 PM »

Quote from: jament on July 25, 2012, 02:52:08 PM

The cat's out of the bag, right?  The FBI estimates there are 200 million privately owned guns in the U.S., and 90 handguns per 100 people. It's a $10 billion dollar industry in the U.S.

Is that true?  Maybe I just run in different circles, but that sounds really high.
Logged

Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8943



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2012, 04:39:05 PM »

I've seen unsourced numbers that, for Texas, it's 2-to-1.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2642


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2012, 05:00:23 PM »

The Diane Rehm show talked about guns the other day. I may be getting this wrong but I think they said that in the 70s, 1/2 people owned guns. Now it's 1/3. However, the people that own guns own more guns now than they used to. Stockpiling is in.
Logged
jament
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2012, 05:19:29 PM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on July 25, 2012, 04:39:05 PM

I've seen unsourced numbers that, for Texas, it's 2-to-1.

Here's one source, though the actual data source may be unclear.  Cool graphic, too:  http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662850/infographic-of-the-day-does-the-us-really-have-that-many-guns

Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8943



View Profile
« Reply #68 on: July 25, 2012, 05:32:47 PM »

I suppose that if I planned a shopping trip to Yemen, I'd probably have to find another way back into the country that didn't involve US Customs.  biggrin
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2012, 08:06:16 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on July 25, 2012, 04:21:59 PM

Quote from: jament on July 25, 2012, 02:52:08 PM

The cat's out of the bag, right?  The FBI estimates there are 200 million privately owned guns in the U.S., and 90 handguns per 100 people. It's a $10 billion dollar industry in the U.S.

Is that true?  Maybe I just run in different circles, but that sounds really high.

this could easily be true because a lot of people that own a gun, don't own just one gun.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2012, 10:12:59 PM »

Ted Nugent chimes in:

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12990393-ted-nugent-dark-knight-audience-should-have-been-armed?lite

Quote
Rocker Ted Nugent offered his opinion on the July 20 shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Colorado, discouraging stricter gun laws and suggesting armed moviegoers might have quelled the massacre.

“We pray for all victims&loved ones of demonshooter in CO& we SALUTE the brave warriors who saved lives IF only they would hav had a good gun,” Nugent posted on his Twitter page Wednesday.

He later tweeted, “there were no assault weapons used in the CO shooting only universally proven sporting & self defense firearms & 6k rounds aint squat. lies,” and “how much dope must one injest for how long to believe unarmed & helpless is a desirable condition? soulless is as soulless does to bait evil.”

Nugent’s statements coincided with his interview on conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s radio show, where he elaborated on his stance and criticized Fox TV host Bill O’Reilly for suggesting the government should raise standards for purchasing heavy weapons.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Eel Snave
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2793



View Profile WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2012, 03:06:56 AM »

OK, so let's say for a moment that no one is talking about removing ALL guns from the streets. We can all agree, I hope, that there are some responsible gun owners out there, and we don't necessarily need to take away their weapons.

However, let's say that there was a ban on, say, assault rifles. After all, yes, they're for "hunting," but unless you're hunting the Predator, it's hard to find an instance where you would need to vaporize your target in a hail of gunfire. Since the shooter purchased his guns legally, he may not have had an AR-15 to fire into the crowd.

Now, is that a reasonable compromise? Why or why not?
Logged
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #72 on: July 28, 2012, 03:18:04 AM »

By all reports I've seen his AR-15 jammed early and most of the damage was done by his pistols.  Also his AR-15 was semi-auto only so I'm still not seeing a problem with the assault rifle portion with regard to this event.

Also keep in mind the round an AR-15 uses is smaller than some semi-auto pistol rounds and it is semi-auto as well.  Other than magazine size the AR-15 is actually a hinderance in this situation due to weapon size.  Put an extended mag on a .45 and you do more damage, more quickly if you wanted to.

True there isn't any need for fully auto weapons in a civilian populace, and personally I don't see a need for an AR-15 at all, but that is neither here nor there on this case.

I think the average person has no idea what an assault rifle is, what types of weapons are legally bought in the US, and what the differences are between hunting rifles and assault rifles.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11552


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: July 28, 2012, 03:57:05 AM »

What is the current definition of an assault rifle? 
Logged
VictorGrunn
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: July 28, 2012, 05:05:16 AM »

Quote from: Eel Snave on July 28, 2012, 03:06:56 AM

However, let's say that there was a ban on, say, assault rifles. After all, yes, they're for "hunting," but unless you're hunting the Predator, it's hard to find an instance where you would need to vaporize your target in a hail of gunfire. Since the shooter purchased his guns legally, he may not have had an AR-15 to fire into the crowd.

As I said before, I don't like hypotheticals like this, so I'll skip over that.

That aside, I think the typical reply is that guns aren't just for hunting - they're for personal defense, both on a personal level and on a larger level (here come the anti-tyranny claims, the counter claims that the government would always win, and the evidence/counter-evidence on both sides.)

I actually wonder what most people who reject the 'check against tyranny' argument think of the American Revolution itself. Due to a combination of claims that had more than a little to do with complaints about inadequate representation and high taxes, citizens start a violent revolution. Huge mistake?
Logged
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #75 on: July 28, 2012, 05:09:56 AM »

Quote from: wonderpug on July 28, 2012, 03:57:05 AM

What is the current definition of an assault rifle? 


    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Bayonet mount
        Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)



that's how it was defined in the 94 ban.  Really though it's an irrelevant distinction.  Most hunting rifles shoot bigger bullets, and they do it just as quickly as the oh so dangerous 'assault rifle'. 
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11552


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: July 28, 2012, 02:01:59 PM »

So it's still "scary looking guns?"  I thought the definition might have evolved since '94.
Logged
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9858



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: July 28, 2012, 05:56:48 PM »

yeah, not really.  I understand not wanting full auto weapons, but the rest seems a bit arbitrary.

I didn't see anything on newer definitions than that ban.
Logged
jament
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: July 30, 2012, 07:52:28 PM »

Sure, go ahead and ban assault rifles.  Looking at the statistics of what guns do the most killing in America, though, you haven't achieved anything. 

It would be a kind of moral victory, I guess, if that's the idea.
Logged
Teggy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8850


Eat lightsaber, jerks!


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: July 30, 2012, 09:02:58 PM »

Serious question: do standard hunting rifles have 20+ round magazines?
Logged

"Is there any chance your jolly Garchomp is female?" - Wonderpug
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.037s, 2q)