Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Gumboy]

Yeah just like global warming the consensus is just a conspiracy.

We have seen one real detractor in this thread. One. A guy that felt the need to insult his audience in his works. Is that all?

Completely different issues with global warming.

[Rukentuts]

Completely different issues with global warming.

Except the lengths to which people go to deny the science remains on in the same.

[Gumboy]

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014...ites/#comments

Interesting article out of Connecticut, a student saying his school blocks conservative websites while allowing the liberal counters through, even on the same issues. It relates to this thread because pro-gun sites are blocked, while some very vehemently liberal anti-gun sites are allowed through, which essentially amounts to forced propaganda in my view.

"Andrew Lampart, a senior at Nonnewaug High School, discovered that he couldn’t get on the National Rifle Association’s website while on campus as he was doing research for a classroom debate on gun control in May.
“So, I went over to the other side,” Lampart told WTIC. “And I went over on sites such as Moms Demand Action or Newtown Action Alliance and I could get on these websites but not the others.”
The 18-year-old decided to investigate further by broadening his search terms to political parties in Connecticut.
“I immediately found out that the State Democrat website was unblocked but the State GOP website was blocked,” Lampart said."

[Svifnymr]

Which is a whole different ballgame, and why I used car accidents as my comparison (with the acknowledgement that accidentally crashing your car and hurting yourself is loosely analogous to shooting yourself by accident).

The part where you failed in your other post was that most negligent discharges would be during holstering/ moving the gun, vs "normal use" of carrying (it's perfectly safe) or shooting at the range. Certainly there's a chance of a problem at the range, but you're generally safety conscious there. You have problems when folks think it's unloaded and it's not, like when you decide to clean it or something.

It'd be like a car is much safer when driving it vs most accidents happening in the garage.

[Ghostpanther]

I just gave you an example. Tens of thousands of individuals in Connecticut failed to register their firearms.

In your opinion, is a direct violation of state law on firearm ownership a responsible act?

It would not be. But it is not a violation of being a responsible safe handling and usage , gun owner. It is a violation of state law which requires them to register their guns. Has nothing to do with the owner's proper use of his gun, but rather a way for the state to control their guns. That speaks more about the person's defiance of what they would consider a dumb or intrusive law.

[Svifnymr]

Yeah just like global warming the consensus is just a conspiracy.

We have seen one real detractor in this thread. One. A guy that felt the need to insult his audience in his works. Is that all?

One real detractor of what? Lots of folks come in and out of the thread, I myself will probably forget this thread once GW2's updates kick in again...
Most of the folks dont' even remember which gun-rights folks were for which restrictions and which were against.

Global Warming, aren't there plenty of studies saying it's all perfectly fine and the whole thing is liberal propanganda? Wasn't there plenty of smoking studies that disagreed with the idea that smoking was harmful?

You're just assuming that the studies that support your point of view are the right side, rather than you championing the cigarette companies ideas. When it comes to a large societal problem that is such a polarizing issue, there is more theory than study, especially on a large scale.

[Rukentuts]

One real detractor of what?

One detraction study.

- - - Updated - - -

When it comes to a large societal problem that is such a polarizing issue, there is more theory than study, especially on a large scale.

Yeah, when one says statistical samples aren't a thing which isn't a defense.

[Svifnymr]

One detraction study.

You mean one study that agreed with pro-gun in some way?

[Rukentuts]

You mean one study that agreed with pro-gun in some way?

Yes. /10 chars

[Svifnymr]

Yeah, when one says statistical samples aren't a thing which isn't a defense.

Laws vary considerably across the US, most studies I've seen were quite regional and as I said, usually had some very convoluted criteria applied to their datasets.

[Rukentuts]

Laws vary considerably across the US, most studies I've seen were quite regional and as I said, usually had some very convoluted criteria applied to their datasets.

Which is all hunky-dory to nitpick one. But there's been literally dozens nitpicked in this thread. That's a pattern of deliberate ignorance.

[Svifnymr]

Yes. /10 chars

So then none of the National Institute of Justice studies I've linked existed? Hrm, that's odd.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is all hunky-dory to nitpick one. But there's been literally dozens nitpicked in this thread. That's a pattern of deliberate ignorance.

Everything gets nitpicked and ripped apart, it's the nature of the internet. Unless you've missed the current 10 page discussion about the wording used on a statement and whether it was meant as a fact or an opinion?

[Rukentuts]

So then none of the National Institute of Justice studies I've linked existed? Hrm, that's odd.

- - - Updated - - -



Everything gets nitpicked and ripped apart, it's the nature of the internet. Unless you've missed the current 10 page discussion about the wording used on a statement and whether it was meant as a fact or an opinion?

You mean these people?

The NIJ paper also shoots down the Obama administration’s “universal background checks,” unless the administration is willing to go all the way to gun registration, which the White House says it is not contemplating — because that would surely galvanize even greater resistance. Regarding the background checks, Ridgeway says: “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchase, requiring gun registration.” (Emphasis added.)

Were you referring to the study about Australia? When 9/11 and I have linked studies showing handguns increase homicide rates here in the US of A. Which was, just like every other study we have linked to support our claims, nitpicked by people that refuse to ever believe it.

Either way. I'm done for tonight.

[Svifnymr]

You mean these people?

The paper in question links to various studies, and there are others as well, sure.

Were you referring to the study about Australia?

Which study about australia?

When 9/11 and I have linked studies showing handguns increase homicide rates here in the US of A. Which was, just like every other study we have linked to support our claims, nitpicked by people that refuse to ever believe it.

Either way. I'm done for tonight.

I"m off for the night as well, but at least you seem to admit there's not just one pro-gun study at this point.

[TITAN308]

When 9/11 and I have linked studies showing handguns increase homicide rates here in the US of A....

I don't care if they increase homicide rates. I don't commit homicide with mine. Hands off, mind your own business.

[PhaelixWW]

gun ownership on decline, gun deaths not declining, only when looked at per 100k

it´s like you both can´t follow the discussion and try to be sneaky, funny though

Uh, did you fail to notice that the number of incidents was decreasing, too, not just the rate?

Not trying to be sneaky, I posted the numbers for you to disprove what you said. You said incidents, I posted incidents. The rate was just a part of the table that the tool spit out.

You posted the link to the tool and said that it supported your claim. I used the tool you linked, posted the data to refute your claim, and somehow I'm the sneaky one?

Good lord.

- - - Updated - - -

It's that when we find someone with a pen stabbed in their eye, we can check the pen registry and track down the owner and ask him how his pen got in that eye.

It's like you're not hearing me every time I say "We can do this already, without a centralized registry."

And maybe, if someone has a history of stabbing people with pens, we won't sell them more pens.

Ditto. That's the point of the background check. You don't need a registry to check a police record, eh?

- - - Updated - - -

I. Don't. Have. An. Argument.

Sure you do. Your argument is that Tinykong's statement is invalid.

You've spent 10 pages arguing that point, so I'd sure as hell say that it's your argument.

[Mayhem]

Compares percentage of households who identify as owning guns to per capita death rates.

Complains that people have poor math skills.

sorry to say this but i wasn´t, i made a rough estimation from the percentages, but i have to admit i was off, the actual number of gun ownership increased a little bit

year 2000

population: 281,421,906 - 35% gun ownership: 98,497,667 - # of households: 103,200,000 - 35% household gun ownership: 36,120,000

year 2010

population: 308,745,538 - 32% gun ownership: 98,798,572 - # of household: 114,800,000 - 32% household gun ownership: 36,736,000

Because no one has ever been killed with a firearm by someone who didn't own any firearms, ever.

that is a prime example for irresponsible gun ownership, he stole the weapons from his mother

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, did you fail to notice that the number of incidents was decreasing, too, not just the rate?

Not trying to be sneaky, I posted the numbers for you to disprove what you said. You said incidents, I posted incidents. The rate was just a part of the table that the tool spit out.

You posted the link to the tool and said that it supported your claim. I used the tool you linked, posted the data to refute your claim, and somehow I'm the sneaky one?

Good lord.

you´ve posted only accidents, not incidents

[Sunseeker]

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014...ites/#comments

Interesting article out of Connecticut, a student saying his school blocks conservative websites while allowing the liberal counters through, even on the same issues. It relates to this thread because pro-gun sites are blocked, while some very vehemently liberal anti-gun sites are allowed through, which essentially amounts to forced propaganda in my view.

"Andrew Lampart, a senior at Nonnewaug High School, discovered that he couldn’t get on the National Rifle Association’s website while on campus as he was doing research for a classroom debate on gun control in May.
“So, I went over to the other side,” Lampart told WTIC. “And I went over on sites such as Moms Demand Action or Newtown Action Alliance and I could get on these websites but not the others.”
The 18-year-old decided to investigate further by broadening his search terms to political parties in Connecticut.
“I immediately found out that the State Democrat website was unblocked but the State GOP website was blocked,” Lampart said."

University blocks are usually created on a couple of factors:
1: software that blocks for you. It locates keywords on the website and blocks them on that basis.
2: complaints. People complain that such-in-such website is naughty and raise a fuss and get it on the blocked list.
3: virus/spyware reports. Often these are from ads. Since most college computers aren't running Firefox or Chrome and have easy access to IE for all the people living in the 90's out there, they usually aren't running ad-blocking software. In this case: return to A or B. Software either picks up malicious attacks and blocks them or people file complaints.
4: people are dicks. Being a dick is not restricted by race, religion, nationality, heritage, political alignment or sexual orientation. Dicks will usually attempt to get away with as much as they can before people catch on.

The best solution to this problem is of course to REPORT IT TO THE MEDIA BECAUSE LIBERALS BE BANNIN CONERVATISM AND FREE THOUGHT!!!!

....no not really. The best solution is to bring it to the attention of the school administration. Either A: they'll resolve the issue, or B: they'll be dicks.

[Mayhem]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...p-decline-u-s/

I'll leave this here for you. It's one of those SCIENTIFIC polls where they got there numbers for your declining data.

did you read the 3 conclusions? 1 and 2 are beyond ridiculous

1 suggests a broad conspiracy and paranoid tensions
2 as usual fights the methods ... also with paranoid tensions

3 is somewhat of an indication and could be looked at for further studies

[PhaelixWW]

you´ve posted only accidents, not incidents

Yeah, I don't tend to group up the criminal uses of firearms with the law-abiding majority of gun owners.

To me, seeing that accidental deaths are going down while criminal deaths are going up just means that while legal gun ownership is going down, criminal gun ownership is going up.

I think the accidental death rate is a much better indicator of average overall responsibility for the law-abiding majority than trying to include the criminal fringe.