Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[bergmann620]

Do you have the freedom to purchase firearms without cost or bureaucracy?

I guess that depends on what words like 'Shall', 'Not', 'Be' and 'Infringed' mean.

I don't see a freedom being jeopardized here. You still have firearm access in your home. That's what Heller DC established as the floor.

Why would you? We are rarely unbiased enough to fight for freedoms we don't wish to avail ourselves of.

You can imagine it all you'd like. The actual registration isn't a sacrifice of freedom. The abuse, on the other hand, would be.

It seems that we have differing opinions. That's shocking.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If anything, anti-science and anti-intellectualism are what's sending us into the shitter.

Statistics and data tell us a lot more than what "feels" good or right.

[bergmann620]

Are you going to explain why the statistics showing the seatbelts work are wrong? No? Because you have no vested interest in denying seat belts functioning?

Or, it could be that there is no right to driving a car unbelted enumerated in the document that is the basis for our laws?

[petej0]

The studies aren't flawed, they're conducted in the proper scientific settings, with bivariable analysis, control groups, confidence intervals, weighted data, statistically significant values etc. I'm not really interested in listening to armchair analysts point out certain aspects that they think invalidate the entire study and the findings.

It's not just a single study by a single author. There are multiple that all come to the same conclusion. Much more than I've linked.

Here is the problem, people look at the number of gun deaths in the US and claim we have a gun problem. Really what we have is a gang with gun problem. The vast majority of deaths in this country is caused by gang related deaths using hang guns. People were up in arms over guns due to Sandy Hook but the legislation proposed during this knee jerk reaction wouldnt have even stopped the crime they were responding to.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Or, it could be that there is no right to driving a car unbelted enumerated in the document that is the basis for our laws?

Nor is there a clause in the second amendment saying there is complete and unrestricted access to all weapons. The SCOTUS agrees with this notion as well. It strikes down laws that outright prohibit access to guns, but does not strike down ones that can make you jump through a couple more hoops to get one.

[PhaelixWW]

Every measured risk we take is not 'driven by fear', even if it is a preventative/preparatory action.

Hell, we should talk about this country's use of anti-bacterial products. "Driven by fear" of everyday bacteria, all we're really doing is creating bacteria with a much greater resistance to anti-bacterial products. Also, we're weakening our immune systems by limiting our exposure to low-grade bacteria that can help build up the anti-bodies which may be needed to fight off a more serious infection down the road.

[petej0]

Hell, we should talk about this country's use of anti-bacterial products. "Driven by fear" of everyday bacteria, all we're really doing is creating bacteria with a much greater resistance to anti-bacterial products. Also, we're weakening our immune systems by limiting our exposure to low-grade bacteria that can help build up the anti-bodies which may be needed to fight off a more serious infection down the road.

Not to mention killing good bacteria.

[PhaelixWW]

he´s not promoting banning guns while owning guns, he´s promoting registration while owning guns... that´s not hypocritical

He characterizes gun owners as paranoid gun-crazed nutjobs... and he owns guns.

[jugzilla]

I'm all for gun grab pork being removed from common sense regulation. That's why Feinstein's bill never even came up for a vote. It was laden down with so much retarded legislation. Like attempting to leap across a canyon instead of taking it one step at a time down a trail.

Untrue, it was brought to a vote in the Senate. They seperated it from UBC. Her "assault weapons" ban failed 60-40, the UBC vote was a lot closer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us...-personal.html

Oh that was a happy day for me. :P

Do you have the freedom to purchase firearms without cost or bureaucracy?

Much like you have the right to vote without paying a poll tax.

I don't see a freedom being jeopardized here. You still have firearm access in your home. That's what Heller DC established as the floor.

I share your sentiments on safe storage. If you are really concerned about being attacked at any point of the day in your own home, carry a gun on your person. No need to just leave them scattered around the house.

You can imagine it all you'd like. The actual registration isn't a sacrifice of freedom. The abuse, on the other hand, would be.

And that abuse HAS happened recently in New York publishing the names and addresses of Gun owners.

[lockedout]

he´s not promoting banning guns while owning guns, he´s promoting registration while owning guns... that´s not hypocritical

He's promoting registration of all guns while owning unregistered guns...that's hypocritical.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah that's why we cling to things more likely to harm us.

Nice. Your rebuttal to the claim of irrationality is to repeat a premise that hasn't been proven as it were fact.

What's that quote...? Ah, yes. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds[...] He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."

Yeah. That about sums it up.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nice. Your rebuttal to the claim of irrationality is to repeat a premise that hasn't been proven as it were fact.

I guess you missed the 500 times the statistics showing guns are more likely to be turned on their owners/owner's family than to be used against a home invader/mugger.

Oh that's right, you've come up with a nice little excuse for why that data doesn't matter.

[PhaelixWW]

Like attempting to leap across a canyon instead of taking it one step at a time down a trail.

That implies that the other side of the canyon is still your ultimate destination though.

- - - Updated - - -

The studies aren't flawed, they're conducted in the proper scientific settings, with bivariable analysis, control groups, confidence intervals, weighted data, statistically significant values etc. I'm not really interested in listening to armchair analysts point out certain aspects that they think invalidate the entire study and the findings.

Dish it but can't take it, huh? So you can link studies but nobody's allowed to analyze their findings? There's some Orwellian doublethink for you. A great step forward for the idea of people thinking for themselves.

It's not just a single study by a single author. There are multiple that all come to the same conclusion. Much more than I've linked.

And they're almost universally flawed. Do you think many scientists are going to take money from the NIH for a study that aims to come to the conclusion that guns in the home are not a health concern? The problem is that incidents of gun violence in the home are a quantifiable statistic. Non-incidents of gun violence due to the presence of a gun in the home are, by their nature, far less quantifiable.

Maybe I'd feel different if I'd ever seen a study that simultaneously controlled for the confounding variables I keep listing.

Did you even bother to read the link rebutting the study? Probably not, because it gives a very detailed description of basically the exact things I've been saying here ad nauseam.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That implies that the other side of the canyon is still your ultimate destination though.

If the other side is a massive reduction in homicides and non lethal shootings, I don't see the issue.

[Rukentuts]

What you think are facts aren't really facts, but hoplophobes just don't want to hear it.

Okay Mr. Scientific Conclusions Come From Raw Data

- - - Updated - - -

The number of people who misrepresent a case study conclusion as "facts" and "proof" is astounding. It's a lack of critical thinking like that which is causing the USA to fall into the shitter.

This is laughable coming from you. You don't even get the 8th grade concept of the scientific method.

Here's another fact, gun possession falls with educational attainment. Interesting.

[PhaelixWW]

Are you going to explain why the statistics showing the seatbelts work are wrong? No? Because you have no vested interest in denying seat belts functioning?

I have absolutely no idea how this is supposed to be a rebuttal to the statement of mine you quoted.

Pre 9-11 was talking about the basic rules of firearm handling as a fear of the danger of a weapon contradicting the statement that someone wasn't afraid of the danger of his sidearm to his health.

My point was that people are taught to respect the potential danger a firearm can be when handled improperly. And yet people tend to shrug off the lessons they learn about driving when they drive, despite the fact that a car is statistically waaaaaaaay more dangerous as a source of accidental injury/death through negligent or unsafe driving habits.

[lockedout]

Here's another fact, gun possession falls with educational attainment. Interesting.

It's a fact because you say so? Sorry if I'm not a believer.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Who says they shrug it off? I apply safe driving habits constantly when I drive, as they lead to statistically lower driving deaths. I also protect myself via other methods that don't statistically put me at higher risk to conversely be killed by those methods. Lights outside your house, fake security cameras, and an alarm system all serve as far better deterrents for potential burglars than a firearm does, yet many gun owners neglect these simple, mostly effective measures in favor of the security blanket feeling a gun gives them.

[lockedout]

Lights outside your house, fake security cameras, and an alarm system all serve as far better deterrents for potential burglars than a firearm does, yet many gun owners neglect these simple, mostly effective measures in favor of the security blanket feeling a gun gives them.

How do you know that they don't have a firearm AND alarm, lights, video etc? What happens when you have those things and someone breaks into your house anyway while you're home? Or does that not happen in your reality?

[Rukentuts]

Who says they shrug it off? I apply safe driving habits constantly when I drive, as they lead to statistically lower driving deaths. I also protect myself via other methods that don't statistically put me at higher risk to conversely be killed by those methods. Lights outside your house, fake security cameras, and an alarm system all serve as far better deterrents for potential burglars than a firearm does, yet many gun owners neglect these simple, mostly effective measures in favor of the security blanket feeling a gun gives them.

Why are you applying logic to people that cling illogically to items that are more likely to hurt than even help them, and use copious mental hoops to validate themselves for clinging to a security blanket?