You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 04:08:44 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #325 on: November 02, 2015, 09:10:58 PM »
Still, that isn't quite on the level of being several days away from law enforcement.

Let me wait 30 minutes while someone breaks into my house, tries to kill me, tries to rape a family member, etc. I'm sure everyone will be just fine in the half hour it takes the cops to show up.

Quote
And what exactly is your definition of a "drone?" You seem to be pretty staunchly anti-government...what kinds of things do you not want people turning to the government for help with, when the governments (ideal) primary purpose is the safeguarding and...well...governing of the people it represents?

The governments job is to provide a standing military against foreign threats, to maintain and improve the infrastructure of its system, and protect the rights of its citizens.

I'm not anti-government. I'm pro-reality. The government is not an omni-present authority figure. The police do not protect you from danger unless they are physically present, their job is to apprehend criminals after the fact. The role of the government should to be give everyone a level playing field. Not to hold their hands.

Quote
Actually, that's a misrepresentation of the law in the UK. You can easily buy a Katana, as long as it's dulled and sold by a licensed seller, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I could order a replica Katana for display on my wall right now from several locations and have a low chance of there being any issues with it. I personally collect replica weaponry, and I currently have a shield, two (blunted) swords and a (blunted) double-headed axe.

So you can buy a replica. I don't want a replica. I collect weapons as well, ranging from custom knives to antiques. I don't need my government to decide for me that I'm not responsible enough to own a knife with an edge on it, to tell me I can't own a century and a half old saber given to me by my father because its 'too dangerous' or, even worse, ruin it by taking a sander to it to remove its edge and point.

Quote
No, but it's harder to kill several people with a baseball bat than with a gun. Remember, as far as I'm aware homicides only take into account one crime. You're creating a kind of...I don't know. It's not a misrepresentation, but it's certainly not the whole picture. Remember, homicide is ONE victim. What about serial killers and mass murderers? The rates of MASS killings went down. The rate of SEVERAL victims by the same person in one "sitting" went down. What was the gap between a mass shooting in the UK again? Oh yeah, 14 years.

See above. It certainly led to a sharp drop in one killer killing several people, since it didn't happen again until 2010.

So you had less mass shootings... and more individual citizens dying. Tell me again how its better for those individual citizens? 'Oh hey, you didn't get killed by a mass shooter along with 7 other people. Instead you got stabbed by a mugger or beaten to death by a burglar'. Too bad you didn't have a way to defend yourself but, well, we had to curtail those mass shootings even though it did nothing to curb our actual homicide rate.

Also homicides are indeed, one victim. A mass shooter that kills 7 people would add 7 homicides to the statistics. Not one.

Quote
Again with this fallacy; yes, if somebody wants to kill somebody, they'll do it somehow. It's all about making it harder for them to do it, and remember, guns aren't just used in homicides and robberies, they're also used in suicides...in terms of suicides, a gun is a momentary decision of "pull the trigger, bang you're dead." At least by making it harder for people to kill themselves, it gives them a chance to back out before they do it.
Besides. If you lock your doors, burglars are just going to smash the windows and go in that way. Does that mean you don't lock your doors?
And again: 58 times more likely to be shot in the USA and only 1.2 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK. Gun control doesn't increase other types of crime, generally speaking. There are other factors to consider, of course, but suggesting that it does is erroneous.

Except you still haven't shown me how the UK has saved any actual lives. All the statistics just say OTHER people are dying instead. That's not an 'improvement'. That's a side grade.

Quote
You're no safer WITH your gun, since how often do you take it, loaded, out and about around town?

Every single day. The only day I haven't in the last year was 2 days ago on Halloween because I was going to be in multiple bars and also didn't have anywhere to reasonably carry on my costume. Of course I also was carrying a sword and a knife.

Quote
Well THAT'S an exaggeration. The government is going a tad overboard ATM, it's true, but I don't see how restricting minors access to dangerous weapons is being "terrified of the real world." If what you say is true, we wouldn't be allowed cars or cigarettes or alcohol or any kind of pointy object AT ALL....you're acting like the government took away the knives, when that is patently untrue. All they did was say "you're not allowed to sell knives of a certain minimum length and sharpness to people under 18." That's all. You're playing the sensationalist a little here.

Again, slippery slope fallacy. They didn't BAN knives, as I just explained, and they didn't ban ALL guns...and I highly doubt they're going to try and ban rocks. This particular argument is off topic and utterly ridiculous.

Really? Because it sure looks like they did to me on your own government's website:

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

With gems like this:

shuriken (also known as ‘death stars’ or ‘throwing stars’)
kusari (weight attached to a rope, cord or wire)

I mean... ignoring the fact that a kusari isn't a knife in the first place or even a weapon capable of slashing OR piercing... you have a government that has literally outlawed owning a rope with a rock tied to the end.

Quote
Yeah, but Sweden and Switzerland are just so fucking chilled out all the time. It's the drugs. People are too busy getting high and eating chocolate to kill people. Legalise weed, that will mellow people out a little.

Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them.

And how easily accessible certain tools are.

Except in Switzerland they have military combat rifles in their home. Thousands and thousands of them. And yes, they do keep the military ammunition locked up at the training facilities. There is nothing stopping them from buying civilian ammo (which is the same ammo we're using here in the states). So why don't they have the same amount of mass shootings?

Could it be that OWNING a gun doesn't make you more likely to be a mass shooter. Instead mental illness, cultural upbringing, racial tensions, and economic status might be much more significant?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 09:12:28 PM by Tairis »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #326 on: November 02, 2015, 10:29:35 PM »
You've got to stop doing that, because it's starting to irritate me past what I consider normal for a heated discussion.

Nowhere did I say that half an hour is an adequate response time. I just noted that it's gotten a lot better since the olden days and that half an hour is a better response time than several days.

If 1/2 hour isn't an an adequate response time, what is? What response time is adequate that you have the right to take away my ability to do so?

Quote
I would also add "protect its citizens from harm as far as is reasonable and provide protection and care to those that need it."

Well, unless hands need holding...but that's a different topic. Big Government is effective and I think preferable in certain circumstances, whereas Small Government is better in others.
The role of the government is to govern the people. Hence the name.

This is too far off topic but needless to say we're never going to agree on this one either.

Quote
Again, a slight misrepresentation of the law. You can buy a replica without a licence or any kind of background check because it's relatively harmless. You CAN buy an actual weapon - like a katana or something - with an edge, but as I understand it, only if you have a specific licence (which I think is sensible; a basic background check so they know they're not giving a dangerous psychopath a deadly weapon) and as long as you don't take it into the street and start waving it about. Also, again, the government isn't banning knives. It's saying that knives of a certain length and/or type can't be sold directly to minors. Once again, you're sensationalising and exaggerating the story to the point where you're grossly misrepresenting the law to make it sound worse than it actually is. I don't agree with all of the laws here in England, but if you're going to ridicule them, at least ridicule laws that actually exist. Like the one that says it's still legal to kill a Welshman with a longbow so long as it's within the walls or York and it's past midnight.

Really? Because I've now provided 3 different links in this thread where, in the UK, your government and organizations has advocated the banning of kitchen knives, stated that is 100% illegal to carry a switchblade, any form of straight bladed knife, or even a swing assisted pocket knife. It is also 100% illegal to own, at all (again from your government's website) a butterfly knife or a katana. So please point out exactly what I am exaggerating when I am providing you links to your own government and media to support my claims.

Quote
Which as I noted later on, had nothing to do with the gun laws. America has more of both. What's your point?
 

My point is all you've repeated in this thread is 'we banned guns so we have less gun crime'. Which I already stated earlier in the thread I'm not going to argue against, it's just logical. My argument is very simple: reduced gun crime is 100% irrelevant if your crime level stays the same. This shows mathematically that your ban has had no effect on the crime rate because the crime rate didn't change, just the method of the crime.

Quote
It isn't, and I never said it was. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth, thank you.

Then tell me what exactly are you saying?

Quote
*snort* the idea of more guns making people safer has been debunked just by the fact that you have a gun for every man, woman and child in America and yet you have more shootings than anywhere else in the Western World. The thing is, self defence isn't "gun or nothing." There are a variety of weapons and techniques and tactics that are, technically speaking, more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm is. That's just an attempt at an emotional prodding. How about I turn that back on you?
"Oh, I'm sorry that somebody broke into your house and shot your daughter, but we have to protect our citizens right to be armed, now don't we?"

Do go ahead and explain to me these weapons and techniques and tactics that are more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm.

Let me go ahead and take a guess what you're going to provide:

Tasers. Wonderful little devices and I highly recommend having one. Guess what the problem with a taser is? They're not close to 100% effective and you get one shot. Miss? Out of luck. It takes even someone practiced at it a good 30 seconds to reload a taser.

Akido, Judo, some other martial art technique they teach at the local boys and girls club? A skilled practitioner of any martial art is going to have a much better chance against an untrained attacker. Problem with that is 'skilled'. To actually be effective as anything more than a 'you might remember enough of this to save yourself, but probably not' it takes years of discipline, sparring, and training.

How many of these techniques are you trained in to the degree that you could stop a man that outweighs you by 40 lbs and with, say, just an extra 3 inches of reach on you?

Quote
Again, if the rate of gun crime is low to begin with, any further dip probably won't make a blip on the graph, especially when circumstances are leading to more crimes in general. The fact is, stepping back from the UK for a moment, that every country that has increased gun regulation has seen a dip in gun crime. Other crime rates depend on the country and the time being looked at - since obviously recessions lead to more poverty and therefore more crime, generally speaking - but since none of them had a majority of crime being gun crime in the first place, you wouldn't see much change in the overall statistics anyway.

So you've disarmed your citizens for... a non existent change or an increase in your crime rate.

Quote
That's actually kind of terrifying. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that anybody around me could be packing, but then, that's just me; I have grown up in a country where the worst that people are likely - statistically - to be carrying is a particularly sharp keychain. It might also have to do with my area being relatively modern and wealthy, so there's that too. I personally wouldn't feel the need to carry that much weaponry around, and honestly, I don't think deadly weapons should be allowed in public places....but that's just me.

It's called being a responsible gun owner. Considered my permit is to carry concealed you'd never even have known I was carrying it in the first place.

Quote
You're saying that Shurikens and Kusari's aren't deadly weapons that should be treated with caution? And why would you want to carry one of those with you anyway?

This. This is why nobody that actually has weapons gets frustrated and stops taking gun control advocates seriously. Shurikens are deadly weapons? You know who thinks shurkiens are deadly weapons? People that watch too many movies and get them confused with reality. Kusari? Kusari is literally a length of chain. And this has nothing to do with Carrying either. The link that I just posted states that these items are illegal for sale. It's not you can't carry it. Its 'you can't own it'.

Quote
Except no. A Kusari is more complicated than that; it's a double-weighted metal chain designed to strike from a concealed spot. It's not "literally a rock tied to a piece of rope," otherwise conkers would be banned as well. Kusari's are most often solid, heavy metal chains. Not quite the exaggeration you're trying to portray. You seem rather fond of that tactic.

Just going to quote, again, your own governments definition that you even quoted yourself:

kusari (weight attached to a rope, cord or wire)

Your government is defining a kusari as a weight attached to a rope, cord, or wire.

Quote
I don't know. Maybe because they're just less violent than you lot. Maybe it's because they keep them as display pieces rather than actual self defence weapons. Maybe it's because - as you noted - handguns are the weapons of choice for murderers and serial killers because of the ease you can hide them, whereas assault and automatic weapons aren't favoured due to their size and obviousness. Maybe it's because they're saving all their ammo in case the Chinese invade. I don't know.

Handguns are the weapons of choice for criminals. Very few serial killers in history have used firearms by comparison. But even you say right here. You don't know.

What DO we know? We know the Swiss own guns at a rate higher than any other european country yet do not have proportionate gun crime, mass shootings, or general crime. So what I do seem to know is that gun ownership in any format does not seem to have a direct correlation to crime rate.

Quote
Yes, and once again, you're putting words in my mouth and strawmanning my position. I never once said that owning a gun made you more likely to shoot people. I said that the loose restrictions on firearms makes it easier for those people to get ahold of a gun. Would you mind not accusing me of holding a position or saying something that I don't hold or didn't say, please?

The comment you are responding to specifically has me saying:

"Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them, and how easily accessible certain tools are."

What checks and balances? The ones that I already suggested in this same thread regarding national background checks, mental health restrictions, and reasonable waiting periods? I'm not strawmanning anything. Your entire argument seems to be 'we should ban handguns because we did it in the UK and its great'. I have provided you multiple statistics showing where:

Your crime rate didn't go down.

Your own government then banned knives of almost every flavor.

Your crime rate still didn't go down.

The US, whose gunownership laws have only gotten LESS strict has not had an increase in crime but instead has followed the fairly global trend of a slow decline since the 90s.

So what is your argument, exactly?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 10:31:38 PM by Tairis »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #327 on: November 02, 2015, 11:10:07 PM »
Personally, if I'm in a place where an attacker's weight and reach matter, I'd much rather they have a gun than a knife. Granted, I'm horridly out of shape and screwed in both cases, but the gun will be more useful as a club in grappling range than a projectile weapon.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #328 on: November 03, 2015, 02:02:47 AM »
Now, 10 people per 100,000 doesn't sound like much, but bare in mind that that is ten times more than most other "First World Countries."

If we're going to talk about all violent crime with firearms, I will keep pointing to the "rate has cut in half in 20 years and continues to go down" success story.  There is a problem, but it is getting better.  Sure, we can still talk about reducing guns, but the issue is not a crisis, it is an improving situation that we would like to improve more.   

If you're going to point at the mass shootings, I'll keep noting "isolated and incredibly rare incidents that are being used by the media to fuel paranoia and panic."  Again, we can still have a discussion but I'm going to balance limiting the rights of 350,000,000 people with the odds of being killed in a mass shooting being about the same as being killed by lightning. 

The goal should be to make everybody as safe as possible.

An interesting notion.  That's not our goal regarding most other things: we're much more likely to die to heart disease or auto accidents, but as safe as possible certainly isn't our legislation with either.

Is your families protection worth the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent schoolkids?

A fallacy of false dichotomy. 

And how easily accessible certain tools are.

Sure; but all the evidence seems to indicate that's the least important issue in regards to gun violence and crime generally.  After all, you can commit a crime at any moment: every house you walk or drive past is the opportunity to commit burglary.  Why don't you? 

That's actually kind of terrifying. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that anybody around me could be packing, but then, that's just me

It is a bit.  Particularly if you're considering a crime.  There's no handy statistic available to demonstrate how many people decided not to do something because they might take a shotgun to the face. 



Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #329 on: November 03, 2015, 02:14:54 AM »
If we're going to talk about all violent crime with firearms, I will keep pointing to the "rate has cut in half in 20 years and continues to go down" success story.  There is a problem, but it is getting better.

You tend to use the 20 year time frame in your arguments, but that hides the fact that the per-capita rate of gun deaths has been rather stagnant since about 2001. The ratio of gun crime vs. suicide in the total number of gun deaths varies a little over time, but, by and large, both (and the total) show far less of a decline with only a small change in the baseline for the comparison.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #330 on: November 03, 2015, 10:26:03 AM »
In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you. The weight/reach are non-issues at a range where a gun is superior to a melee weapon, so if my theoretical attacker is handicapping himself by trying to attack with a gun in close quarters, I'm better off.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #331 on: November 03, 2015, 12:19:36 PM »
You tend to use the 20 year time frame in your arguments, but that hides the fact that the per-capita rate of gun deaths has been rather stagnant since about 2001. The ratio of gun crime vs. suicide in the total number of gun deaths varies a little over time, but, by and large, both (and the total) show far less of a decline with only a small change in the baseline for the comparison.


And again I note your reading is just as selective.  That graph shows a small but continuing decrease in gun violence; the "stagnant" interpretation is brought about by an increase in suicides and the apparent fact that Americans are 75% more likely to shoot themselves than be shot by someone else.  You also selectively pick a low before a slight increase, but we've had a downturn since and continue to steadily decrease.   



The 2011 homicide rate was, in fact, the lowest since 1960. 

In other words, your graph is a solid argument for improving mental health in the US, and less about guns.  Limiting access would help, of course, and should be done within reason but I think we can respond to the increasing rate of suicide with something better than taking away everything dangerous in the country until people can't find a way to kill themselves. 

Well, how many people do you know who can hurl lightning bolts? The odds of being hit by lightning is officially about 1 in 700,000 in the USA. Getting shot and killed? 1 in 10,000. So not exactly comparable odds.

US population: 318.9 million.  Deaths from mass shootings in 2014: 383.  Or 1 in 819,000. 

Sure, it's something we can address; but my point was that, while mass shootings are all over the news and touted as some omnipresent threat, they are in fact quite rare and a logical fear of them shouldn't be a huge motivator for national policy and individual rights.  Gun deaths are a thing that needs a response, but Sandy Hook style shootings are a media-magnified boogeyman and it's getting very old to see them bandied about as the reason we need to give up rights. 

It should be, though. A governments first priority should be protecting its citizens

Another interesting notion, and again possibly a cultural difference.  I think our government's first priority should be preserving as much of our freedom as possible while providing reasonable protection. 

I know...I thought I would illustrate the issue with your one with one of my own.

*Blinks* I don't believe I've posited my gun ownership and your anger and disgust as an either/or issue. 

It's also about limiting their efficacy.

Crimes of passion, sure, there's a valid discussion there.  I'm not claiming opportunity doesn't have an effect; I'm just stating that it has a much smaller effect than other factors, which would be (have been) a better way to address the issue. 

I don't think I have it in me to pull the trigger.

Great; I'm not telling you to get one.  All I'm saying is don't impose your values on me. 

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #332 on: November 03, 2015, 01:46:55 PM »
Well, obviously I include "not infringing on our freedoms too much" as part of the "as much as is possible" bit.

Actually, that doesn't seem obvious at all when I see things like this:

I don't see why we shouldn't try and push for tighter gun control in the USA.

You seem willing to compromise and I respect that.  But you also sound very much in favor of bans ("You don't want to have your guns banned. Whilst I think that's probably the best way to curtail gun violence, I know you Americans will never give up your guns"), and don't seem to recognize any reason not to other than the practical issue of an unreasonable opposition ("It's mah right!").

My point is that my position isn't based on my anger and disgust, so accusing me of using that as justification to "take away your rights" is incorrect.

So why do you?  I assume you feel something about the issue that motivates your opinion.  Statistically speaking, as I've shown, mass shootings are inconsequential. 

like in Australia, where crime dropped sharply after gun crime dropped by around 60% - surely that suggests that gun control reduces crime in areas that have a higher gun crime rate

And the US crime rate dropped by about 50% in the same period without banning guns, so I'm not as impressed with your numbers as you are.  Certainly banning guns would have an effect.  But it's not a simple answer and isn't without a cost that you don't seem to see at all ("I personally don't get owning guns"). 

And I'm not. I think we would both say that kids being gunned down is bad.

I'm not planning on gunning down any kids.  Taking away my weapon won't have any impact on that. 

You can have a gun...you just need to jump through a couple of hoops to get it to make certain you're not a loony person who's going to go off and kill an ex partner with it. When handing out deadly weapons, it's only sensible to make certain that you know who is getting it and whether they can be trusted with it. Also, I'm a HUGE advocate of what the Australians did in another way: If you buy a gun, you HAVE to take a gun safety course. It's just common sense to train people how to use the weapons safely if you're handing them out.

Sure, all that seems reasonable. 

Again, I'm in favor of regulation.  But when I see comments about not seeing any reason to own a gun, that it's just a "toy", that self protection isn't really a right, or that opposing bans means we're all against tighter gun control, I'm going to speak up. 

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #333 on: November 03, 2015, 03:27:20 PM »
But does it really matter why I'm willing to compromise if I'm willing to compromise?

Fair enough.  I'm just trying for an understanding of other points of view. 

Well, that's a matter of perspective. I doubt the people at that school or the families of the victims find it inconsequential, and I use it as an example because it's the most visible one.

It's statistically inconsequential.  I consider my daughter the center of the world, but I don't expect national policy to be changed based on her experience.   

Let me put this another way: about 450 people die each year from falling out of beds.   More than die in mass shootings, and probably preventable with design requirements and a bed buy-back without removing anyone's constitutional protections.  About 300 people drown in bath tubs each year and could be saved by a bath tub ban. I'm sure their families are upset, yet those issues provoke ambivalence - or even humor?  Are you laughing with me at the bath tub ban? - and aren't something we fear or are internationally concerned about. 

The shootings are instead an emotional issue, one that's important because of our subjective experience but logically speaking aren't a very convincing argument. 

could you please stop addressing it like I am? Please and bloody thank you.

I get that, and I think we're both coming across as far more polarized than we really are.  I think the issue is that I keep addressing bans because that's what you keep citing as support.  Instead, pull some info from regulation to support regulation. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #334 on: November 03, 2015, 03:32:23 PM »
I have to say something about that.  People who die falling out of beds or in bathtubs (barring very specific circumstances) do not die because of someone else's deliberate actions.  Everyone who dies in a mass shooting dies because of someone else's deliberate actions.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #335 on: November 03, 2015, 05:58:35 PM »
Everyone who dies in a mass shooting dies because of someone else's deliberate actions.

I second Oniya here where there is a difference in terms of intent.

And yet so much concern about intentional self-harm once guns are mentioned. 

Secondly, that's a slight misrepresentation; I only use mass shootings as an example.

Yes; you and the media have latched on to one of the only statistics that is on the rise and use it as an "example" for all gun crime, despite the obvious flaw in doing so.  And when called on it, the topic quickly shifts to the overall crime rate until someone mentions how we're the lowest in over 50 years and trending downward, and then it's back to the "example" of how many mass shootings are on the news. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #336 on: November 03, 2015, 06:20:05 PM »
And yet so much concern about intentional self-harm once guns are mentioned. 

Intentionally killing yourself by falling out of bed, or by drowning yourself in the bathtub is pretty difficult.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #337 on: November 03, 2015, 06:27:26 PM »
Intentionally killing yourself by falling out of bed, or by drowning yourself in the bathtub is pretty difficult.

Yeah, but your odds go way up when you can do both at the same time.




Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #338 on: November 03, 2015, 06:34:43 PM »
Yeah, but your odds go way up when you can do both at the same time.

Yeah, but imagine if there were machine guns mounted on the bedposts.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #339 on: November 03, 2015, 06:54:15 PM »
So are you denying that it being on the rise is a problem?

I'm saying it's a problem that should be considered in proper proportion to the solution, and one that is developing in response to unique factors which have arisen recently and independent of other gun violence. 

IMHO they are a direct response to the media frenzy centered on each incident.  A developing, depressed teen feeling outcast and unnoticed is presented with the opportunity to be the center of national attention, with presidential press conferences and years of psychologists unraveling their state of mind and a public eager to place blame on their family or rivals.  It could be better addressed by a more responsible media, a less reactionary public, and improved access to mental health. 

That's not scientific, I'll grant; but since guns have been around for quite a while, and more often used than currently, it seems logical to assume there is some other factor at work. 

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #340 on: November 03, 2015, 06:55:51 PM »
Quote
No it doesn't, for the simple reason I outlined earlier; before the ban, the minority of crime was committed with firearms anyway, so decreasing that number further wasn't going to have a massive effect on crime anyway, since the majority of crime wasn't committed with firearms.
Plus, you seem to be working under the assumption that the law passed and then suddenly nobody had a firearm. That isn't how it works. In England, a Parliamentary Bill takes a few years to come into effect both legally and practically; new systems had to be set up, regulated and refined and police had to be trained on the new laws. That took a couple of years, and once the system came into full effect and all the kinks were worked out, crime started to decline again (which was increasing largely due to the recession). It's less clear cut, but gun legislation DID have an effect on crime, just not an immediate one.

*snip*

A study in 2012 by staff from the Australian National University showed that gun homicide rates dropped by 59%, firearm suicide rate dropped by 65% and that there was no proportional rise in non-firearm Homicide and suicide rates. So yes, the UK wasn't clear cut because gun crime was already in the vast minority so couldn't drop much anyway, but surely the statistics from Australia - who had far more gun crime than the UK - bears out exactly what you're trying to deny; that less guns in a country with a high gun crime rate = less violent homicides (As opposed to non-violent homcides? I dunno).

Except where I pointed out earlier: your homicide rate STILL didn't drop to anything approaching a pre-ban level until 2011 at the earliest. So your claim is its taken a decade and a half but now we're going to credit the gun ban with the reduction?

Looking at Australia's murder rate they've had a steady decline from 2000 on until they're nearing the same levels as most the European developed countries. Funny thing is, those same developed countries experienced an almost proportional decrease in their own murder rates during those times despite not doing anything involving guns.

Australia 2000: 1.89 2009: 1.34 (.55)
Denmark 2000: 1.48 2009: 1.01 (.47)
France 2000: 1.74 2009: 1.09 (.66)
Italy 2000: 1.31 2009: 0.98 (.33)
Switzerland 2000: .98 2009: .66 (.32)

I never denied that if you take away peoples guns you're going to reduce gun deaths. But I find it funny that anytime the gun debate comes up people point and go 'look they banned guns, look how much their crime went down' when we can point to dozens of other countries that didn't alter their gun laws in any way and saw a proportional drop in their own murder rates.

As if homicide rate doesn't have much to do with what weapons you have access to and more to do with your culture and socioeconomic status?

Quote
Dead bloody wrong. This is why you don't go ahead and put words in somebodies mouth, because you risk assuming too much and looking silly.

I was actually going to say that in terms of close quarters, enclosed spaces, knives are generally more effective than guns. And you scoff, but martial arts - if you're trained to a high level like I am - are also FAR more effective in an enclosed space than a gun, especially if you aren't trained in its use. Even if you aren't trained to a high level, all you need to do is remember some very basic techniques and you'll be fine (unless the attacker is trained in MA's). Or just use the age-old strategy of giving them a hefty kick to the baby-maker.

http://offgridsurvival.com/close-quarter-attacks-gun-vs-knife/

A nice example. Not exactly applicable to what we're talking about, but it does illustrate some key things, like just how easy it is to close distance quickly without giving them time to aim and fire.

Really? Because the 2nd thing that you again quoted was you're going to tell me about how some martial art is much better than a gun. Which is exactly what you just did.

You're well trained in your martial art of choice. Good for you. So are you going to provide similar training to the rest of our citizens? How many hours have you trained? How many real world situations have you been in that you've actually had to use said training? Can you provide the same level of expertise to a 108 lb woman with minimal upper body strength? How about a 70 year old veteran with bad knees?

We developed guns because they were easy to use and most importantly their lethality was not directly tied to the physical prowess of the one using them. They are force multipliers. And you're welcome think that you're good enough to take a gun away from someone that draws it on you. I'm going to take the word of the police officers and instructors I've dealt with over the years: the people that like to tout how guns aren't that great 'if you get close' are usually the ones in the ER after being shot.

The scenarios we are talking about are not first person shooters with enemies running at you with the only desire to cut your throat. We're talking about real world situations: robberies, muggings, rapes. I know full well how effective a knife is within that half dozen yard range. It doesn't change the fact that no amount of wishful thinking or YMCA self defense training 'basic techniques' is going to make a regular 45 year old housewife physically equivalent to a 20 year old burglar.

Quote
And you don't see an issue with the fact that anybody could be carrying a loaded weapon on them at all times? That would worry me.

Why? I've been around people with loaded weapons my entire life and oddly nobody has ever went on a shooting rampage. Because, as eBadger as attempted to point out over and over, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than targeted by a mass shooter.

Quote
I dunno, I've seen somebody go to hospital with a shuriken embedded in their shoulder. Ok, they were being a dumbass so kind of deserved it, but the point is that they're still dangerous. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them being outright banned, however. Banned from being owned by dumbasses who are going to end up stabbing themselves, perhaps, but not outright 100% banned.

If you get a licence, you can. But you try being hit by a weighted length of chain and tell me it's "just a piece of chain." I've gotten clipped by a length of chain before, and it almost broke my wrist. It fucking hurt. >.>

That's rather my point. Based upon the guidelines your country has set down that weighted length of chain is illegal. I've got a 10 foot chain with a hitch nut on the end in my truck. By UK Law I'm driving around with an illegal weapon. It's absurd.

Your country has decided to ban things because they are afraid of them. Not because any data, logic, or anything else as shown them to be more dangerous. But because they would rather quell hysterical idiots with 'tough laws' than tell people 'this is ridiculous, no one is running around South London killing people with ninja stars this isn't Big Trouble in Little China'.

I find that abhorrent because you are telling people how to live their lives, telling them what they can and cannot own, not out of reason and rational decisions but out of fear and complacency. "Well I don't want this thing and its scary to me, so I don't think other adult citizens should have it either."


Quote
I've already explained it to you, but I'll do it again here one more time.

I personally think that firearms should be extremely heavily regulated.
However, I know that UK levels of restriction isn't going to happen, mostly due to it being a logistical and cultural nightmare to do.
Therefore, I advocate tighter gun control along similar lines as Australia (minus, perhaps, the "personal protection" not being a valid reason, since that in and of itself is going to cause a lot of problems with people who think that owning a gun you're not trained to use  automatically makes you safer) but not outright gun banning.

Is that clear enough for you?

That would be great if not contradictory. You keep saying 'oh well I dont think banning handguns would work' but then say we should copy Australia which... banned handguns for pretty much all extents and purposes.

I've mentioned multiple compromise solutions, but everyone on the pro-control side always seems to want to jump to 'you shouldn't be able to have X'.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #341 on: November 03, 2015, 08:27:39 PM »

Oh for fucks sake will you stop that?
I already outline my position. Here it is ONE more time.

I think America should copy ASPECTS of Australia's gun laws.
I think America should copy aspects of Australia's gun laws.
Not all of it.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Because that's what it's starting to feel like. When I say "handgun banning wouldn't work, but copying Australia where they increased regulation" isn't a contradiction because I outright excluded banning it from the sentence at the very beginning of the statement. I'm not clarifying that position again.


Since I'm tired of playing merry go round with you I'll replace it with this single question and quote.

What aspects of the Australian Law are you talking about?

I've actually looked up those laws. The least restricted classification of firearms are Class A which includes basically single shot rimfire rifles (.22 LR would be 90% of these) break top rifles and paint ball guns. At the single most lenient part of Australian gun control I have to get a permit to own a paintball gun.

There is no part of the Australian laws that is anything short of a ban with 'exceptions'. I have to provide a 'Genuine Reason' to legally own a paintball gun? This seems to be the part where these is a disconnect here. The government telling me I cannot own a pistol for self defense because I didn't give them a good enough reason is a ban in all but name. You have taken away my right to bear arms and replaced it with a 'government can I please have a gun'?

I will not give the government that power to decide who in the populace gets to be armed at their discretion. The government should have to provide me a reason why I cannot own a firearm. I will not prove to the government that I can exercise my own rights anymore than I am going to provide the government a 'genuine reason' why I should get to exercise my right to free speech or against unlawful search and seizure.

Put restrictions in place to make sure people are mentally competent to purchase a gun? All for it. Put a (reasonable) waiting period on gun purchases to prevent someone from buying a gun 'in the heat of the moment'? All for it. Requiring basic, universal licensing to carry a firearm in public? All for that too.

But I will not accept any form of government agency telling me I cannot own a gun because they decided I didn't need it. We've already given our government too much power to push their personal agendas. We've been letting the government tell us what we're allowed to do with our own bodies for centuries. I have no interest in giving them any more control.

You love to accuse me of 'exaggerating' but every single thing about these ridiculous restrictions has been backed up by facts provided by your own government. You're right, the cops aren't going to lock you up for using a bike chain... unless they need something to charge you with. Suddenly that bike chain becomes a weapon because the suspect was 'wielding it in a threatening manner'. Because the way the law appears to be written they can justify that. Its called Selective Enforcement. And in a country where we have a constant problem with racial tensions between cops and citizens as it is? I'd rather not put more vague, paranoid laws on the books to placate people.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 08:29:04 PM by Tairis »

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #342 on: November 03, 2015, 08:55:49 PM »
If you both are feeling frustrated, it might be best to take a bit of a time out before things get too heated.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #343 on: November 04, 2015, 03:51:43 AM »
And again I note your reading is just as selective.  That graph shows a small but continuing decrease in gun violence; the "stagnant" interpretation is brought about by an increase in suicides and the apparent fact that Americans are 75% more likely to shoot themselves than be shot by someone else.  You also selectively pick a low before a slight increase, but we've had a downturn since and continue to steadily decrease.
I would like to ask you to read my post you are referring to again. I said the "per-capita rate of gun deaths" has been stagnating - and that is supported by the graph I posted.

I also said that the ratio of suicides vs. homicides varies only little, and, again, I fail to see how that is not supported by that graph and the underlying data.

What I completely fail to see is how you can look at that graph and claim a "continuing decrease" in "gun violence". For one, the homicide-per-capita numbers do tend slightly upward till about 2005/2006, then fall slightly again. It's only a "continuing decrease" if you pick two data points and ignore what happened in-between. For another, "gun violence" and homicide rates are not the same. Just that the number of gun homicides has been more or less stable does not mean you are just as likely (or less so) to be shot than you were ten years ago.

In fact, the deaths caused by guns would actually show an increase over time, if not for the improving survival rate, as I have pointed out earlier. Take that into account and the rate of gun violence is a good bit higher than just the fatality figures would indicate.



The 2011 homicide rate was, in fact, the lowest since 1960.
May I ask for the source of that graph? I can't make heads or tails of it, as it shows homicide methods by percent. If I total all the most recent numbers I come to about 0.006% of all homicides committed with handguns, other guns, blunt objects, knives, or other weapons. What's used in the rest of homicides? Bare hands and poison? How are the other 99,994% of homicides committed?

I also must admit that I can't completely follow you when you use that graph to draw comparrisons to 1960 when the data reaches back only to the mid-70s, but maybe that's just me.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #344 on: December 03, 2015, 12:12:34 PM »
  It undoubtedly is. But part of the problem is the mentality to guns. Even if no legislated is made in response to it, accepting that guns kill would be an important step towards that.

  Doesn't Canada manage to deal with such problems without needing the second Amendment? (Okay no alligators, but police are far away and wolves and bears)

  Two problems with this:

  1. This could happen in the future, people are dying now.

  2. The US has a military. Either they side with the government, and you will get slaughtered (Vietnam does not support a civilian victory because the political considerations that lead to the withdrawal of US forces would not be a factor in an revolution), or they side with the people against the government, and you don't need an armed population to topple them, the professional military does that.

  So you want a balance, but you don't want new gun laws? How are things going to be balanced? By changing nothing?

  Yes, but people problems don't have as high a death count when the problematic people don't have such easy access to guns.

  Not too relevant, no state is an island and authorities have limited control to prevent guns crossing a a state borders. Besides, strictest gun law in the US doesn't mean too much when it still needs to comply with the latest interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

  Twice (that I know of). This is the 350th mass shooting event in the US this year. Now I get that figure from an anti-gun page, so we can assume it have been inflated by some ridiculously broad definition of "mass shooting", but even assuming its been artificially boosted, the point remains that a mass shooting incident in Paris is a major event. For the US, someone in this thread responded "Not again".

 Lisztes restricting firearms runs into the big problem that in the US, firearm ownership is a right, just like the freedom of speech, or the press, assembly, to worship your religion (or not), to object to quartering of troops in your home, to unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. I, like many others, hold ALL of those rights as sacred, and none of them should be limited, restricted or removed -except- by due process, on the individual level. Not for the entire country in restricting/removing it, but on a case by case basis.

 That being said; asking that new gun laws be passed isn't going to help when current gun laws now aren't being enforced. If the government isn't enforcing many gun control measures now, why would adding more mean they will be enforced? It also ignores that if driven underground, there will be a large black market for firearms, and not cheap dangerous ones either, but well crafted and sophisticated firearms that work and work well, and are completely unknown to the system. A computer controlled lathe and milling machine can make make pistols easily. 3-D printers are getting into metal so they will be able to make a reliable firearm, and laser mills (DMLS) http://gizmodo.com/the-world-just-got-its-first-entirely-3d-printed-metal-1460338036  will only come down in price and get better at making firearms. All of this isn't counting the people who can make good modern firearms with hand tools or low tech machinery.
 this is also ignoring that the murder rate and firearm related deaths have been going down. What is going up is the coverage in this age of cell phones, Twitter and vid streaming.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #345 on: December 03, 2015, 12:34:17 PM »
Lisztes restricting firearms runs into the big problem that in the US, firearm ownership is a right, just like the freedom of speech, or the press, assembly, to worship your religion (or not), to object to quartering of troops in your home, to unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. I, like many others, hold ALL of those rights as sacred, and none of them should be limited, restricted or removed -except- by due process, on the individual level. Not for the entire country in restricting/removing it, but on a case by case basis.

  I wish people would stand up against civil forfeiture as strongly as they would against gun control. I barely ever hear people complaining about that. Maybe if police started taking people's guns via civil forfeiture enough people would get angry that the practice would stop.

That being said; asking that new gun laws be passed isn't going to help when current gun laws now aren't being enforced. If the government isn't enforcing many gun control measures now, why would adding more mean they will be enforced?

  Because new laws could be more easily enforced, or legislation could give governmental bodies more power/resources to enforce them. Which laws in particular aren't being enforced?

It also ignores that if driven underground, there will be a large black market for firearms,

  So, no physical goods should be illegal because they will just be available on the black market anyway, or is this stance only applicable to fire arms?

this is also ignoring that the murder rate and firearm related deaths have been going down. What is going up is the coverage in this age of cell phones, Twitter and vid streaming.

  That statistic is debated. Whilst it has fallen since the mid 90s, a lot of graph show that in recent years the rate has leveled out. Besides, this was the 355th mass shooting incident this years. "We're getting better" doesn't really cut it, at least not to me.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #346 on: December 03, 2015, 12:41:11 PM »
I find it amusing that the same special interest advancing the argument that gun control laws aren't being enforced enough (i.e. the NRA) is also the one demanding that the ATF's funding be cut.  (Another.)

Seriously, I'll play this out.  Call.  Now let's triple the funding to all of the law enforcement agencies so they can get those illegal gun sellers/owners.  Congress?  Get to it.

Well?

Hmm?

Why do I hear crickets?


Offline Aiyanna

  • Generally Lucid ~ Marginally Manic ~ Intentionally Poetic ~ Sarcastically Witty ~ Loveable Comic Relief for the Masses
  • Lady
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: On the hi-i-i-ighway to Hell!
  • Gender: Female
  • I only bite when you ask nice! ;)
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #347 on: December 03, 2015, 06:07:07 PM »
So, no physical goods should be illegal because they will just be available on the black market anyway, or is this stance only applicable to fire arms?


Okay, I could be reading this wrong here, but I think the point being made with the black market argument is that, if you outlaw guns, then only those with questionable morals/ethics have guns. Law-abiding citizens who just want to protect their loved ones wouldn't. Just my 2 cents. *goes back to lurking*

Offline Zakharra

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #348 on: December 03, 2015, 06:17:08 PM »
Okay, I could be reading this wrong here, but I think the point being made with the black market argument is that, if you outlaw guns, then only those with questionable morals/ethics have guns. Law-abiding citizens who just want to protect their loved ones wouldn't. Just my 2 cents. *goes back to lurking*

 I disagree with this (assuming I read it correctly). I can tell you that a hell of a LOT of US citizens would flat out not comply with a gun ban. I certainly would not, and I can bet that most of the population of my state and large sections of the populations of the states surrounding Idaho would ignore such a ruling/action by the feds. I honestly think it would be the country as a whole, especially west of the Mississippi that would ignore the ban/repeal of the 2nd. And the government would not be able to do a damned thing about it; not to mention that the politicians that voted for this would almost certainly lose their seats in the next elections. Assuming they were not recalled and replaced before that. Rights should always be added to, not removed.

Offline Aiyanna

  • Generally Lucid ~ Marginally Manic ~ Intentionally Poetic ~ Sarcastically Witty ~ Loveable Comic Relief for the Masses
  • Lady
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: On the hi-i-i-ighway to Hell!
  • Gender: Female
  • I only bite when you ask nice! ;)
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #349 on: December 03, 2015, 06:22:47 PM »
I disagree with this (assuming I read it correctly). I can tell you that a hell of a LOT of US citizens would flat out not comply with a gun ban. I certainly would not, and I can bet that most of the population of my state and large sections of the populations of the states surrounding Idaho would ignore such a ruling/action by the feds. I honestly think it would be the country as a whole, especially west of the Mississippi that would ignore the ban/repeal of the 2nd. And the government would not be able to do a damned thing about it; not to mention that the politicians that voted for this would almost certainly lose their seats in the next elections. Assuming they were not recalled and replaced before that. Rights should always be added to, not removed.

Not saying I agree with it, or that the attempt would work, just saying that I think that is the point being made. Not so much that things should just be legal otherwise they go on the black market.