Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Really not sure how you're having so much trouble with this.

really not sure how to make this any clearer, it adds function

of course it´s still a rifle, still firing bullets, it´s not becoming an rpg or a dirt bike...

putting a sales ban on these accessories would work as well

[PhaelixWW]

really not sure how to make this any clearer, it adds function

It doesn't add any function. The firearm functions exactly the same.

It's an ergonomic feature. It's main benefit is that it allows you to position your body differently, which has no effect on your firepower, only on your profile against incoming fire.

[Mayhem]

It doesn't add any function. The firearm functions exactly the same.

It's an ergonomic feature. It's main benefit is that it allows you to position your body differently, which has no effect on your firepower, only on your profile against incoming fire.

is this some funny semantics game? the person handling the weapon has the ability to handle it differently, extending the area where he can operate the weapon

putting snow tires on your car doesn´t make it a submarine, but it adds function to the car

[PhaelixWW]

is this some funny semantics game? the person handling the weapon has the ability to handle it differently, extending the area where he can operate the weapon

putting snow tires on your car doesn´t make it a submarine, but it adds function to the car

A pistol grip doesn't add new functionality, it just adds comfort for existing functionality. Anything you can do with a pistol grip, you can do with a regular stock, just not necessarily quite as well, depending on the use, and more likely not as comfortably.

Can you drive in snow without snow tires? Yes. Snow tires don't add functionality, they just mildly enhance existing functionality in specific situations.

You might as well ban rifle slings. Or rifle scopes. Or iron sights. Or hogue grips. Or... hell, oxygen. Breathing properly, which relies on oxygen, tends to make you more likely to be able to function, which directly affects your ability to shoot on target. So ban oxygen.

[Mayhem]

A pistol grip doesn't add new functionality, it just adds comfort for existing functionality. Anything you can do with a pistol grip, you can do with a regular stock, just not necessarily quite as well, depending on the use, and more likely not as comfortably.

Can you drive in snow without snow tires? Yes. Snow tires don't add functionality, they just mildly enhance existing functionality in specific situations.

You might as well ban rifle slings. Or rifle scopes. Or iron sights. Or hogue grips. Or... hell, oxygen. Breathing properly, which relies on oxygen, tends to make you more likely to be able to function, which directly affects your ability to shoot on target. So ban oxygen.

i see you went straight from argumentation to bonkers, good day

[Slant]

I've posted this elsewhere... I'll try it here.

People often say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" to justify that guns aren't inherently evil, right? They're tools.

What if I say "Guns don't kill people, but people without guns also don't kill people"? Of course I'm ignoring knives etc, but then... some dude with a gun can also kill some other dude with a knife so that's kinda pointless in a gun debate.

[Ghostpanther]

I've posted this elsewhere... I'll try it here.

People often say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" to justify that guns aren't inherently evil, right? They're tools.

What if I say "Guns don't kill people, but people without guns also don't kill people"? Of course I'm ignoring knives etc, but then... some dude with a gun can also kill some other dude with a knife so that's kinda pointless in a gun debate.

The concept is the person holding the gun makes the decision what he wants to shoot, barring a accident. Same as if a person decides to hit a ball or another person's head with a baseball bat. Guns happen to be very effective killing tools. But they are still a tool. Misused by some and needs some type of regulation because they are so effective at killing.

[TZucchini]

Comparing apples to apples, an attacker who feels his life to be in imminent danger will be more likely to pull the trigger than a defender who feels his life to be in imminent danger.

I disagree. It could just as easily be the other way around, considering the attacker is looking at substantial jail time if they pull the trigger, whereas the victim is not. Could that factor into the decision? In some cases, sure.

Reading comprehension. The quote said: "respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use." They were only asked about defensive gun use in the context of a criminal incident. It ignores most incidents of defensive gun use which prevented a criminal incident from happening in the first place.

If people are using firearms in a threatening manner when a criminal incident hasn't even taken place, then said use is illegal.

If a criminal incident did take place, and a firearm was used defensively, the NCVS would apply.

So which is it?

...sure as heck sounds like an absolute. I don't see an "is often enough" or "is sometimes enough" there. Instead, I see an "is more than enough". Take better care with your words if you don't want to be accused of claiming an absolute.

Firstly, perhaps you'll notice a lack of 'absolute' wording in that statement. Words like 'all', 'every', 'always', 'only', 'none', 'never', etc. Here's another example: The action of texting while driving is more than enough to cause an accident. That doesn't mean an accident occurs every single time you text and drive.

Secondly, take better care of my words? It's a forum. I don't sit here proofreading my statements. Sometimes I'm going to misspeak, or need to clarify. Sometimes things sound right in my head, but I fail to translate them into words. I think everyone is guilty of that. I mean did you actually think I was of the belief that homeowners scare away burglars 100% of the time? That's a pretty spectacular assumption to make.

And criminals might just indicate additional instances of DGU's that the defenders aren't even aware of because they saw or knew that the person was armed.

You've just pointed out yet another limitation with he DGU numbers. Let's go over them all, shall we?

1). Various surveys on DGU's vary drastically. Ranging from 2.5 million a year, to 67,000 a year. That's a ridiculously high standard deviation, completely unacceptable from a statistical standpoint.
2). Many DGU's may be illegal.
3). DGU's are only measured from the perspective of the victim. The attacker is the only person that knows for certain if the presence of a firearm was a factor.
4). DGU's are particularly susceptible to positive social desirability response bias.

So, yes, comparing justifiable/unjustifiable homicide stats as a stand-in for overall gun offensive/defensive actions is ridiculous.

Justifiable/unjustifiable are subject to exactly zero of the limitations I've listed above. While comparing the two isn't perfect (no comparison is), it's markedly better than comparing offensive/defensive actions.

Is the comparison ridiculous? I suppose it is if you're attempting to justify our equally ridiculous firearm laws.

[Tinykong]

I disagree. It could just as easily be the other way around, considering the attacker is looking at substantial jail time if they pull the trigger, whereas the victim is not. Could that factor into the decision? In some cases, sure.

It doesn't.

[Mayhem]

It doesn't.

the rates go down with age... sooo

[Tinykong]

the rates go down with age... sooo

Probably because people are in jail... sooooo

[TZucchini]

It doesn't.

Let's look at that conclusion: "We conclude that, for any of the above interpretations, increases in incarceration lengths—from current levels—are unlikely to significantly deter criminal behavior."

You wouldn't be trying to generalize and broaden that conclusion to fit your narrative would you? That would be something you accuse others of endlessly, so I'm certain that you're not accidentally doing it here yourself, right? Right?

This study is quite clearly speaking to the lengthening of sentences/increasing severity not significantly deterring criminal behavior. It's also studies a very specific age group. It really has nothing to do with whether or not current lengths/severity are a deterrent.

Also, I asked "Could that factor into the decision?" to which you have answered very bluntly, "It doesn't."

Again, that's not what the study found. "Unlikely to significantly deter." The absolute answer that you gave isn't reflected in the study you've linked, and is thus, wrong.

[Eroginous]

really not sure how to make this any clearer, it adds function

of course it´s still a rifle, still firing bullets, it´s not becoming an rpg or a dirt bike...

putting a sales ban on these accessories would work as well

Yes, I just said these accessories add function. But they don't add any function when it comes to pulling the trigger and shooting someone. A guy with a factory fresh AR15 is going to shoot just as many people as a guy with a fully accessorized AR15.

is this some funny semantics game? the person handling the weapon has the ability to handle it differently, extending the area where he can operate the weapon

putting snow tires on your car doesn´t make it a submarine, but it adds function to the car

How does handling it differently change the rate of fire on the rifle? How does it lessen recoil, improve accuracy, or extend magazine capacity? You have yet to even show there being a substantial difference in shooting results compared to not having one. So again, to go from 'okay to own' to 'must be banned,' you're making that decision based on how the rifle looks, not how it functions.

[Tinykong]

Let's look at that conclusion: "We conclude that, for any of the above interpretations, increases in incarceration lengths—from current levels—are unlikely to significantly deter criminal behavior."

You wouldn't be trying to generalize and broaden that conclusion to fit your narrative would you? That would be something you accuse others of endlessly, so I'm certain that you're not accidentally doing it here yourself, right? Right?

This study is quite clearly speaking to the lengthening of sentences/increasing severity not significantly deterring criminal behavior. It's also studies a very specific age group. It really has nothing to do with whether or not current lengths/severity are a deterrent.

Also, I asked "Could that factor into the decision?" to which you have answered very bluntly, "It doesn't."

Again, that's not what the study found. "Unlikely to significantly deter." The absolute answer that you gave isn't reflected in the study you've linked, and is thus, wrong.

Feel free to look up another study, plenty of them show the same conclusion: punishment doesn't deter crime.

[TZucchini]

Feel free to look up another study, plenty of them show the same conclusion: punishment doesn't deter crime.

They will conclude that punishment doesn't ever deter crime?

[Tinykong]

They will conclude that punishment doesn't ever deter crime?

Absolutes mode, engaged!

[TZucchini]

Absolutes mode, engaged!

Let's go back in time.

I asked: "Could that factor into the decision?"

You answered: "It doesn't"

Absolute mode has already been engaged. Feel free to retract your statement.

[Tinykong]

Let's go back in time.

Oh, only gun grabbers are allowed to make snarky one liners that link to studies?

[TZucchini]

Oh, only gun grabbers are allowed to make snarky one liners that link to studies?

So, are you going to retract your statement, or just pretend it never happened?

[Tinykong]

So, are you going to retract your statement, or just pretend it never happened?

I'm taking a page from the gun grabber playbook: I linked a study and made a one liner.

Now I'll just consider you a science denier for criticizing the study.